Rolf Turner <r.tur...@auckland.ac.nz> [Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 10:01:34PM CEST]: > > 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?)
E-mail doesn't convey tone, facial expression or gesture. I would give Duncan the benefit of the doubt here. >> >>> >>> 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. Ask explicitly, get an explicit answer. A documentation comprising explicit answers would be an FAQ, which in itself is not concise in most cases. -- Johannes Hüsing There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture mailto:johan...@huesing.name from such a trifling investment of fact. http://derwisch.wikidot.com (Mark Twain, "Life on the Mississippi") ______________________________________________ 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.