[R] On Reproducible Code
jrkrideau at inbox.com
Fri Jul 27 16:11:13 CEST 2012
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jim at bitwrit.com.au
> Sent: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 19:21:36 +1000
> To: dcarlson at tamu.edu
> Subject: Re: [R] On Reproducible Code
> On 07/26/2012 01:50 AM, David L Carlson wrote:
>> We often refer requesters to the Posting Guide and chide them for not
>> reading it.
>> I hesitate to sound too optimistic, but there might be some advantage in
>> making the statement more prominent and adding a reproducible example
> The reponses to some requests for help do seem to get a volley of the
> "reproducible code" answers. Some, such as:
> I can't get the answer. PLEASE HELP!!!
> probably deserve it, but others appear to emerge from the overheated
> brain of the frustrated noob. With a wonderfully informative name like
> "dput", it is rather challenging to guess that this function is the way
> to calm the affronted guru with an example of your problem. I am
> particularly amused by the phrase "reproducible code", which sounds
> perilously close to the definition of a virus. Perhaps the neglected
> little message at the bottom of each email (which seems to reproduce
> itself) might be easier for the uninitiated to understand if it read:
> Please include the R code that is causing the problem _and_ enough data
> (see the "dput" function) for someone else to run the code and get the
> same problem.
> I can remember when I didn't know that there was a "dput" function.
I can remember spending a lot of time constructing a data set to post before someone mentioned ?dput. Ah, yes, I still have a couple of generic ones archived.
I think your wording above makes a lot of sense.
GET FREE SMILEYS FOR YOUR IM & EMAIL - Learn more at http://www.inbox.com/smileys
Works with AIM®, MSN® Messenger, Yahoo!® Messenger, ICQ®, Google Talk™ and most webmails
More information about the R-help