[Rd] binary form of is() contradicts its unary form
i.ucar86 at gmail.com
Thu Nov 30 14:32:12 CET 2017
2017-11-30 14:13 GMT+01:00 Suzen, Mehmet <mehmet.suzen at gmail.com>:
> On 30 November 2017 at 14:04, Iñaki Úcar <i.ucar86 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Am I supposed to read every reference on a man page just to know what
>> to expect from a function?
> If the reference is from John Chamber, you are supposed to read it.
As a joke, it's funny.
> It is not always possible for maintainers to document everything on a man page.
My only point is that Hervé's concern is perfectly legitimate given
the output of "?is". Whether the inconsistency is in the behaviour of
the function or in the documentation, that I don't know. Personally, I
think that having two functions (is, extends) with exactly the same
output wouldn't be very practical. But it's a fact that the difference
is not currently addressed in the man page.
More information about the R-devel