You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The structure of that object is also very similar to a DESCRIPTION:
#' This is basically the Title field#'#' This can replace the Description: field.
As such I find it a bit redundant to maintain both the DESCRIPTION and the package-level doc file separately.
It seems natural to me to be able to maintain the DESCRIPTION entirely from within the R folder, supported by roxygenizing. There's a lot of detail to flesh out (e.g. all the other DESCRIPTION fields that don't have a corresponding roxygen tag today), but first -- is that something that would be in scope for the package?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I think we've mostly been moving in the opposite direction, generating more of the package documentation topic from the DESCRIPTION. So I do think this is out of scope.
Package-level documentation (https://usethis.r-lib.org/reference/use_package_doc.html) is a very natural place to keep some package-level roxygen entries, e.g.
@import
/@importFrom
in the namespace.The structure of that object is also very similar to a DESCRIPTION:
As such I find it a bit redundant to maintain both the DESCRIPTION and the package-level doc file separately.
It seems natural to me to be able to maintain the DESCRIPTION entirely from within the R folder, supported by roxygenizing. There's a lot of detail to flesh out (e.g. all the other DESCRIPTION fields that don't have a corresponding roxygen tag today), but first -- is that something that would be in scope for the package?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: