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.
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?
Duncan Murdoch
Now that you have made it *genuinely* explicit,
I can understand what the documentation is saying. Prior to that I
wouldn't
have had a prayer of guessing that get() would sometimes find things
that
getAnywhere() would not find.
Moreover, if getAnywhere() does not really mean ``get *anywhere*''
then its
name is misleading. Surely it wouldn't be too tough to modify
getAnywhere()
so that it really got anywhere. E.g. get it to call get() when it can't
find an object with a given name?
cheers,
Rolf
######################################################################
Attention:
This e-mail message is privileged and confidential. If you are not the
intended recipient please delete the message and notify the sender.
Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author.
This e-mail has been scanned and cleared by MailMarshal
www.marshalsoftware.com
######################################################################
______________________________________________
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.
