Please invest in documentation for the package 🙏
Opened this issue · 2 comments
I say this with all due respect, but the documentation for this package is really bad.
I feel like as a user, any question I have about the package turns into a very long expedition to find an answer.
#62, #79, #81 are just a few examples.
Right now I'm trying to figure out "Given x a variable which is already an escaped regular expression, how can I combine it with other to-be-escaped parts inside rex() without winding up with a re-escaped version of x in the output?"
I have already spent 20 minutes trying to answer this question and still have gotten nowhere. I would expect this sort of thing to be very common and thus front-and-center, perhaps on the README or on a main vignette.
I dread having to use {rex} because this sort of rabbit hole is the standard outcome of trying to use it. I would really like to use it more because the premise of the package is so appealing.
You are definitely right. We'll try to take a look at this next time we're working on rex. (Pull requests would also definitely be appreciated if you have any available bandwidth!)
I would love to and always hate making a big complaint without being able to contribute much, but I think it would take way more investment to get up speed where I could write good docs.
I am happy to be a guinea pig for reading docs and offering feedback from a noobish perspective, though!