"`R notes' should be better"
Martin Maechler <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Thu, 12 Mar 1998 18:17:14 +0100
[CC'ed to R-devel, not R-help]
>>>>> "Bill" == Bill Simpson <email@example.com> writes:
Bill> Thanks very much Douglas for the pointer to nlm. Maybe the
Bill> "Notes on R" maintainer can add at least a mention of nlm in the
Bill> section on nonlinear fitting?
Bill> (This example could replace the current nonlinear fitting section
Bill> in "Notes on R")
You are talking of <CRAN>/doc/Rnotes.ps, or Rnotes.tgz respectively,
The first page states both R & R as authors (beside Venables & D.Smith).
However, I doubt if they consider themselves as 'maintainers'
of these notes (due to lack of time), or do you?
The problem is that these notes need more work than just ('nls' <-> 'nlm').
Maybe I should ask again for volunteers, or maybe even a discussion
on what could / should be done.
The notes have several sections (organized in different *.tex files) in
Could(/should) we have different authors (ie. volunteers from among you)
for these sections?
About a year ago or so, Kurt Hornik proposed that these notes should become
chapter 1 -- n of ``the book'' where
the current things in RHOME/doc/manual/Man.tex are just the appendices
(they already *are* appendices, currently).
R & R instead, originally thought (and have also started ??) of completely
rewriting from scratch these chapters (1 -- n).
Which should be done (and by whom) ?
In the case of "R notes upgrading,
it'd make sense if someone first works thru the current notes
and makes them (somewhat) ``compatible'' with the Rd.sty that we
currently use for the help-manual (i.e. the doc/manual/... things).
r-devel 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: firstname.lastname@example.org