The summary function behaves inconsistently with data frame columns, e.g.

summary(rock)           #max of area 12212, correct
summary(rock$area)  #max of area 12210, incorrect max

I know that  
summary(rock$area, digits=5)  
will correct the error (I DID read the manual). But my point is the inconsistency, because I get the correct answer without having to add the digits option in the first statement when referring to the full dataframe. This is one of the first functions that beginners use and if they have to RTM and tinker with options before they can get a consistent value for the max of an integer column, it is off-putting to say the least. At worst it confirms the skeptic's suspicion that open-source software is a bit flaky.  Would it be out of line to report this to r-bugs -- at least to improve on the documentation?  

-jms
r2.13.1 maclion


	[[alternative HTML version deleted]]

