Rolf Turner <[email protected]> [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:[email protected] from such a trifling investment of fact.
http://derwisch.wikidot.com (Mark Twain, "Life on the Mississippi")
______________________________________________
[email protected] 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.
