[Rd] HTML vignette browser
deepayan.sarkar at gmail.com
Tue Jun 5 21:12:57 CEST 2007
On 6/5/07, Friedrich Leisch <friedrich.leisch at stat.uni-muenchen.de> wrote:
> >>>>> On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 11:52:51 -0700,
> >>>>> Robert Gentleman (RG) wrote:
> > Deepayan Sarkar wrote:
> >> On 6/4/07, Seth Falcon <sfalcon at fhcrc.org> wrote:
> >>> Friedrich Leisch <friedrich.leisch at stat.uni-muenchen.de> writes:
> >>>> Looks good to me, and certainly something worth being added to R.
> >>>> 2 quick (related) comments:
> >>>> 1) I am not sure if we want to include links to the Latex-Sources by
> >>>> default, those might confuse unsuspecting novices a lot. Perhaps
> >>>> make those optional using an argument to browseVignettes(), which
> >>>> is FALSE by default?
> >>> I agree that the Rnw could confuse folks. But I'm not sure it needs
> >>> to be hidden or turned off by default... If the .R file was also
> >>> included then it would be less confusing I suspect as the curious
> >>> could deduce what Rnw is about by triangulation.
> >>>> 2) Instead links to .Rnw files we may want to include links to the R
> >>>> code -> should we R CMD INSTALL a tangled version of each vignette
> >>>> such that we can link to it? Of course it is redundant information
> >>>> given the .Rnw, but we also have the help pages in several formats
> >>>> ready.
> >>> Including, by default, links to the tangled .R code seems like a
> >>> really nice idea. I think a lot of users who find vignettes don't
> >>> realize that all of the code used to generate the entire document is
> >>> available to them -- I just had a question from someone who wanted to
> >>> know how to make a plot that appeared in a vignette, for example.
> >> I agree that having a Stangled .R file would be a great idea (among
> >> other things, it would have the complete code, which many PDFs will
> >> not).
> >> I don't have a strong opinion either way about linking to the .Rnw
> >> file. It should definitely be there if the PDF file is absent (e.g.
> >> for grid, and other packages installed with --no-vignettes, which I
> >> always do for local installation). Maybe we can keep them, but change
> >> the name to something more scary than "source", e.g. "LaTeX/Noweb
> >> source".
> > I would very much prefer to keep the source, with some name, scary or
> > not...
> I have no strong opinion eitehr way, just "source" may have a lot of
> people belive that is R code -> whatever "scary" name is chosen sounds
> good to me.
> I'll have a shot at installing the tangled code later this week (there
> is a holiday coming up on Thursday).
Great. Assuming that this will involve .../Meta/vignette.rds getting a
new column similar to "PDF", the code changes in browseVignette()
should be minimal. I'll work on a .Rd file.
More information about the R-devel