[R] Bug in "is" ?
murdoch at stats.uwo.ca
Fri Sep 26 01:35:45 CEST 2008
On 25/09/2008 6:33 PM, Rolf Turner wrote:
> On 26/09/2008, at 9:23 AM, Wacek Kusnierczyk wrote:
>> indeed. one more example that R man pages are often rather
>> uninformative, despite verbosity.
> My, you ***are*** in a bad mood, aren't you? :-)
> The quality of R documentation has been debated, castigated
> defended and dissected many times before on this list.
> Overall the quality of the documentation is good. It is a
> bit ``curate's egg'', but overall ... it's good. Especially
> in comparison with most other systems.
> There are parts of the documentation that I'd like to re-write.
> But they would never let me! :-)
Just try us! But remember that the man pages should be correct and
appropriately complete, and it helps if they're terse. Suggesting
they're verbose just shows that Wacek isn't reading them carefully enough.
Of course, there are lots of examples where they are not correct, or
unintentionally incomplete. Those are the parts we'd really like you to
re-write. There are also parts where they are intentionally incomplete:
there are certain things that users are not meant to know. (Things
that might not be true in the next release, not arcane secrets.)
More information about the R-help