[R] get() versus getAnywhere()

[Duncan Murdoch]

On 19/04/2009 4:01 PM, Rolf Turner wrote:
> On 19/04/2009, at 9:45 PM, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
> 
>> On 18/04/2009 8:47 PM, Rolf Turner wrote:
>>> On 17/04/2009, at 10:21 PM, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
>>>
>>>> Benjamin Tyner wrote:
>>>>> Many thanks Duncan. Perhaps this merits a more explicit note in the
>>>>> documentation?
>>>>>
>>>> The quote I gave is from the documentation.  How could it be more
>>>> explicit?
>>> This is unfortunately typical of the attitude of R-core people toward
>>> the
>>> documentation.  ``It's clear.'' they say.  ``It's explicit.''   
>>> Clear and
>>> explicit once you *know* what it's saying.  Not before, but.
>> But I didn't say that.  I asked how to make it more explicit.
> 
> 	Oh come on Duncan!  You did *not*.  You asked (rhetorical
> 	question) ``How could it be more explicit?''  (Implied:  How
> 	could it ***possibly*** be more explicit?)

Well, I have to admit that I was thinking "***possibly***", but I didn't 
write it, because I wanted a suggested revision.  I didn't get one, and 
still haven't, even after asking again.  I won't ask a third time; I 
already put something in, and if that doesn't satisfy you, then I think 
you'll likely go to your grave unsatisfied.

You have to understand the process here:

  - You (or Benjamin, in this case) find something unclear, but don't 
suggest a clarification.
  - I read it, find it clear, assume you didn't because you didn't read 
the man page (or are mentally deficient), but I'm polite enough to point 
out where I found the explicit explanation.
  - You (this time really you) complain that it isn't clear, but *still* 
don't write a revision.

Now, at either the 1st or 3rd step, it would have been much easier for 
you (or Benjamin) to suggest a change that would have been clear to you, 
than it was for me to try to imagine what it is like to live in your 
head, and figure out what would be clear to you.

>>> In this case the documentation is quite opaque to me, and I would
>>> suspect
>>> to a good many like me.
>> What change would make it less opaque?
> 
> For one thing, point out ***explicitly***, as you did in your post, that
> getAnywhere() doesn't actually get ***anywhere***.  Only some wheres.

We said where it looks.  That still seems explicit to me.  There are a 
lot of places where it doesn't look, and now it lists two of them, but I 
expect to hear complaints from you that I didn't mention the fact that 
it doesn't look in your back garden.

> (How's that for Canuck English, Berwin?)
> 
> 	cheers,
> 
> 		Rolf
> 
> ######################################################################
> Attention: 
> This e-mail message is privileged and confidential. If you are not the 
> intended recipient please delete the message and notify the sender. 
> Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author.
> 
> This e-mail has been scanned and cleared by MailMarshal 
> www.marshalsoftware.com
> ######################################################################


My message is neither privileged nor confidential, and hasn't been 
cleared by anybody.

Duncan Murdoch