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?)
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.
(How's that for Canuck English, Berwin?)
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.
