[Rd] binary form of is() contradicts its unary form

[Suzen, Mehmet]

On 30 November 2017 at 11:37, Iñaki Úcar <i.ucar86 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2017-11-30 3:14 GMT+01:00 Suzen, Mehmet <mehmet.suzen at gmail.com>:
>> My understanding is that there is no inconsistency. `is` does what it
>> claims, from the documentation:
>>
>> ‘is’: With two arguments, tests whether ‘object’ can be treated as
>>           from ‘class2’.
>>
>>           With one argument, returns all the super-classes of this
>>           object's class.
>
> Note that this is not in the documentation since a year ago.
>

As far as I understood and gather, starting from methods v3.3.2, the following
new reference is added:

* Chambers, John M. (2016) Extending R, Chapman & Hall. (Chapters 9 and 10.)

Pushing that details there, I assume.

Best,
Mehmet