[R] check() warnings for survival-2.6

[Prof Brian D Ripley]

On Mon, 12 Nov 2001, Thomas Hoffmann wrote:

> I am not sure if this is the right place for that kind of questions, but
> I wondered
> that the recommended package survival did not pass R's check procedure
> without
> warnings:

Well, that's the check for the next version of R applied to code prepared
for the last version of R.  You could try the checks on R 1.3.0 say ....

Having these tools (principally thanks to Kurt) has enabled us to catch
literally hundreds of small problems and a few bigger ones.

[...]

> If I did not miss something, these are bugs, but not of R, but of a
> contributed
> package. What is the right place for reporting such bugs?

R-bugs, Cc:ed the package maintainer, I think.  R-bugs has a section called
`Add-ons' for contributed code.

Do remember that survival is a port, and porters do find it hard to
document other people's code.  Certainly some of the packages I have ported
have undocumented functions solely because I do not know what they
are supposed to do.

-- 
Brian D. Ripley,                  ripley at stats.ox.ac.uk
Professor of Applied Statistics,  http://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/~ripley/
University of Oxford,             Tel:  +44 1865 272861 (self)
1 South Parks Road,                     +44 1865 272860 (secr)
Oxford OX1 3TG, UK                Fax:  +44 1865 272595

-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
r-help mailing list -- Read http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.html
Send "info", "help", or "[un]subscribe"
(in the "body", not the subject !)  To: r-help-request at stat.math.ethz.ch
_._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._