[R] The hidden costs of GPL software?
rkoenker at uiuc.edu
Tue Nov 23 16:40:16 CET 2004
Having just finished an index I would like to second John's comments.
Even as an author, it is difficult to achieve some degree of
completeness and consistency.
Of course, maybe a real whizz at clustering could assemble something
very useful quite easily. All of us who have had the frustration of
for a forgotten function would be grateful.
url: www.econ.uiuc.edu/~roger Roger Koenker
email rkoenker at uiuc.edu Department of Economics
vox: 217-333-4558 University of Illinois
fax: 217-244-6678 Champaign, IL 61820
On Nov 23, 2004, at 7:48 AM, John Fox wrote:
> Dear Duncan,
> I don't think that there is an automatic, nearly costless way of
> an effective solution to locating R resources. The problem seems to me
> to be
> analogous to indexing a book. There's an excellent description of what
> process *should* look like in the Chicago Manual of Style, and it's a
> lot of
> work. In my experience, most book indexes are quite poor, and
> generated indexes, while not useless, are even worse, since one should
> concepts, not words. The ideal indexer is therefore the author of the
> I guess that the question boils down to how important is it to provide
> analogue of a good index to R? As I said in a previous message, I
> that the current search facilities work pretty well -- about as well
> as one
> could expect of an automatic approach. I don't believe that there's an
> effective centralized solution, so doing something more ambitious than
> currently available implies farming out the process to package
> authors. Of
> course, there's no guarantee that all package authors will be diligent
> John Fox
> Department of Sociology
> McMaster University
> Hamilton, Ontario
> Canada L8S 4M4
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: r-help-bounces at stat.math.ethz.ch
>> [mailto:r-help-bounces at stat.math.ethz.ch] On Behalf Of Duncan Murdoch
>> Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 8:55 AM
>> To: Cliff Lunneborg
>> Cc: r-help at stat.math.ethz.ch
>> Subject: Re: [R] The hidden costs of GPL software?
>> On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 13:59:23 -0800, "Cliff Lunneborg"
>> <cliff at ms.washington.edu> quoted John Fox:
>>> Why not, as previously has been proposed, replace the current static
>>> (and, in my view, not very useful) set of keywords in R
>>> with the requirement that package authors supply their own
>> keywords for
>>> each documented object? I believe that this is the intent of the
>>> concept entries in Rd files, but their use certainly is not
>> required or
>>> even actively encouraged. (They're just mentioned in passing in the
>>> Writing R Extensions manual.
>> That would not be easy and won't happen quickly. There are some
>> - The base packages mostly don't use \concept. (E.g. base
>> has 365 man pages, only about 15 of them use it). Adding it
>> to each file is a fairly time-consuming task.
>> - Before we started, we'd need to agree as to what they are for.
>> Right now, I think they are mainly used when the name of a
>> concept doesn't match the name of the function that
>> implements it, e.g.
>> "modulo", "remainder", "promise", "argmin", "assertion". The
>> need for this usage is pretty rare. If they were used for
>> everything, what would they contain?
>> - Keywording in a useful way is hard. There are spelling
>> issues (e.g. optimise versus optimize); our fuzzy matching
>> helps with those.
>> But there are also multiple names for the same thing, and
>> multiple meanings for the same name.
>> Duncan Murdoch
>> R-help at stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list
>> PLEASE do read the posting guide!
> R-help at stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list
> PLEASE do read the posting guide!
More information about the R-help