Dear Peter,
You're correct that these examples aren't verb phrases (though the second one
contains a verb phrase). I don't want to make the discussion even more pedantic
(moving it in this direction was my fault), but "Paragraph" isn't quite right,
unless explained, because conventionally a paragraph consists of sentences.
How about something like this? "One can use several complete sentences or
punctuated telegraphic phrases, but only one paragraph (that is, block of
continuous text with no intervening blank lines). The description should end
with a full stop (period)."
It would likely be helpful to add some examples of good and bad descriptions,
and to explain how the check actually works.
Best,
John
On Tue, 7 Jul 2015 12:20:38 +0200
peter dalgaard <pda...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...except that there is not necessarily a verb either. What we're looking for
> is something like "advertisement style" as in
>
> UGLY MUGS 7.95.
>
> An invaluable addition to your display cabinet. Comes in an assortment of
> warts and wrinkles, crafted by professional artist Foo Yung.
>
> However, I'm drawing blanks when searching for an established term for it.
>
> Could we perhaps sidestep the issue by requesting a "single descriptive
> paragraph, with punctuation" or thereabouts?
>
> ----
>
> I'm still puzzled about what threw Federico's example in the first place. The
> actual code is
>
> if(strict && !is.na(val <- db["Description"])
> && !grepl("[.!?]['\")]?$", trimws(val)))
> out$bad_Description <- TRUE
>
> and I can do this
>
> > strict <- TRUE
> > db <- tools:::.read_description("/tmp/dd")
> > if(strict && !is.na(val <- db["Description"])
> + && !grepl("[.!?]['\")]?$", trimws(val)))
> + out$bad_Description <- TRUE
> > out
> Error: object 'out' not found
>
> I.e., the complaint should _not_ be triggered. I suppose that something like
> a non-breakable space at the end could confuse trimws(), but beyond that I'm
> out of ideas.
>
>
> On 07 Jul 2015, at 03:28 , John Fox <j...@mcmaster.ca> wrote:
>
> > Dear Peter,
> >
> > I think that the grammatical term you're looking for is "verb phrase."
> >
> > Best,
> > John
> >
> > On Tue, 7 Jul 2015 00:12:25 +0200
> > peter dalgaard <pda...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 06 Jul 2015, at 23:19 , Duncan Murdoch <murdoch.dun...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 06/07/2015 5:09 PM, Rolf Turner wrote:
> >>>> On 07/07/15 07:10, William Dunlap wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> [Rolf Turner wrote.]
> >>>>
> >>>>>> The CRAN guidelines should be rewritten so that they say what they
> >>>>>> *mean*.
> >>>>>> If a complete sentence is not actually required --- and it seems
> >>>>>> abundantly clear
> >>>>>> that it is not --- then guidelines should not say so. Rather they
> >>>>>> should say,
> >>>>>> clearly and comprehensibly, what actually *is* required.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This may be true, but also think of the user when you write the
> >>>>> description.
> >>>>> If you are scanning a long list of descriptions looking for a package to
> >>>>> use,
> >>>>> seeing a description that starts with 'A package for' just slows you
> >>>>> down.
> >>>>> Seeing a description that includes 'designed to' leaves you wondering
> >>>>> if the
> >>>>> implementation is woefully incomplete. You want to go beyond what CRAN
> >>>>> can test for.
> >>>>
> >>>> All very true and sound and wise, but what has this got to do with
> >>>> complete sentences? The package checker issues a message saying that it
> >>>> wants a complete sentence when this has nothing to do with what it
> >>>> *really* wants.
> >>>
> >>> That's false. If you haven't given a complete sentence, you might still
> >>> pass, but if you have, you will pass. That's not "nothing to do" with
> >>> what it really wants, it's just an imperfect test that fails to detect
> >>> violations of the guidelines.
> >>>
> >>> As we've seen, it sometimes also makes mistakes in the other direction.
> >>> I'd say those are more serious.
> >>>
> >>> Duncan Murdoch
> >>>
> >>
> >> Ackchewly....
> >>
> >> I don't think what we want is what we say that we want. A quick check
> >> suggests that many/most packages use "headline speech", as in "Provides
> >> functions for analysis of foo, with special emphasis on bar.", which seems
> >> perfectly ok. As others have indicated, prefixing with "This package"
> >> would be rather useless. However, I'm at a loss as to how to describe what
> >> it is that we want, much less how to translate it to a dozen other
> >> languages.
> >>
> >> -pd
> >> --
> >> Peter Dalgaard, Professor,
> >> Center for Statistics, Copenhagen Business School
> >> Solbjerg Plads 3, 2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark
> >> Phone: (+45)38153501
> >> Email: pd....@cbs.dk Priv: pda...@gmail.com
> >>
> >> ______________________________________________
> >> R-help@r-project.org mailing list -- To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see
> >> 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.
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Peter Dalgaard, Professor,
> Center for Statistics, Copenhagen Business School
> Solbjerg Plads 3, 2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark
> Phone: (+45)38153501
> Office: A 4.23
> Email: pd....@cbs.dk Priv: pda...@gmail.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------
John Fox, Professor
McMaster University
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
http://socserv.mcmaster.ca/jfox/
______________________________________________
R-help@r-project.org mailing list -- To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see
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.
