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.)
Duncan Murdoch
______________________________________________
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.
