[x] For some weird reason, for the return value of a function, the indentation seems broken.
[ ] Not happy anymore with the way expected data types for arguments are stated. E.g. x [numeric(1)] might be clear for an experienced user, but not a less experienced R rookie.
[x] Currently, many technical details are given in the @description field. This should rather go under @details, right? Description should hold some information on what the function actually does.
[ ] There should be DOIs for all referenced papers and DOIs should be links.
[x] Sometimes titles have a trailing dot, sometimes not. What is the recommendation here?
[x] It looks weird if for the return value only the data type is reported. We should do this more R-like even if the result is obvious.
[x] Function hv lacks a reference.
[x] Examples for log_init need line-breaks
[x] The index looks very full due to @seealso and @family.
x [numeric(1)]
might be clear for an experienced user, but not a less experienced R rookie.@description
field. This should rather go under@details
, right? Description should hold some information on what the function actually does.hv
lacks a reference.log_init
need line-breaks@seealso
and@family
.