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! :-)
cheers,
Rolf
######################################################################
Attention:\ This e-mail message is privileged and confid...{{dropped:9}}
______________________________________________
R-help@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
