Fix pSee brace closure, add input validation, update docs, bump version

[vertesy]

Motivation

• Fix a missing brace in pSee() that left the inner if (is.null(d)) ... else ... block unclosed causing incorrect message/printing behavior.
• Enforce compact argument validation on pSee() to prevent misuse and follow package conventions for input assertions.
• Keep documentation and examples consistent by using the actual arguments head_vec and head_df and updating generated docs.

Description

• Add a single compact stopifnot() at the start of pSee() validating !missing(x) and that head_vec and head_df are positive, finite, whole-number numeric scalars.
• Insert the missing closing brace after head_n <- head_df so the inner else block ends before msg1 is computed.
• Update roxygen examples in R/CodeAndRoll2.R to use head_vec and head_df and synchronize man/pSee.Rd accordingly; regenerate NAMESPACE/man via roxygen where possible.
• Bump package source version in Development/config.R from 2.8.0 to 2.8.1.

Testing

• Ran a lightweight delimiter/parenthesis check for pSee() which passed.
• Ran git diff --check and repository consistency checks which reported no trailing-diff issues.
• Attempted roxygen2::roxygenise() but it failed because Rscript is not available in the environment, so man/pSee.Rd was synchronized manually and NAMESPACE showed no required changes.

---

Codex Task

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 7538a93b30

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

[vertesy]

@copilot

How can this missing brace pair be real??
I have been using this function even this week, and it worked perfectly in my hand.

A missing brace pair would mean that the function just errors out and the package cuuld not be documented, right?

[Copilot]

@copilot

How can this missing brace pair be real??
...

You’re right that a missing brace pair would break parsing. In this case it was a single missing inner closing brace in pSee() in the PR branch state, not in your installed/released copy. The function block had 5 { but 4 } in that revision, so msg1/msg2/message/print ended up in the wrong scope. That explains why your local use could still seem fine depending on version/code path, while this branch still needed the brace fix.