> "hw" == hadley wickham
> on Wed, 2 Sep 2009 14:02:06 -0500 writes:
hw> On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 1:54 PM, Stavros
hw> Macrakis wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 2:39 PM, Stavros
>> Macrakis wrote:
>>
>>> Most types of language objects are regarded as
>>
On 03/09/2009 5:36 PM, Stavros Macrakis wrote:
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 5:30 PM, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
On 02/09/2009 4:10 PM, Stavros Macrakis wrote:
...
I would nonetheless claim that the documentation as currently written
is at best ambiguous and confusing, and would benefit from improved
word
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 5:30 PM, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
> On 02/09/2009 4:10 PM, Stavros Macrakis wrote:
...
>> I would nonetheless claim that the documentation as currently written
>> is at best ambiguous and confusing, and would benefit from improved
>> wording.
>
> A claim that documentation would
On 02/09/2009 6:50 PM, Tony Plate wrote:
Duncan Murdoch wrote:
On 02/09/2009 4:10 PM, Stavros Macrakis wrote:
Let us stipulate that the current wording can be construed to be
correct.
I'd rather just state that the current wording is correct, without the
weasel words.
I would nonetheless cl
Duncan Murdoch wrote:
On 02/09/2009 4:10 PM, Stavros Macrakis wrote:
Let us stipulate that the current wording can be construed to be
correct.
I'd rather just state that the current wording is correct, without the
weasel words.
I would nonetheless claim that the documentation as currently
On 02/09/2009 4:10 PM, Stavros Macrakis wrote:
Let us stipulate that the current wording can be construed to be correct.
I'd rather just state that the current wording is correct, without the
weasel words.
I would nonetheless claim that the documentation as currently written
is at best ambi
Let us stipulate that the current wording can be construed to be correct.
I would nonetheless claim that the documentation as currently written
is at best ambiguous and confusing, and would benefit from improved
wording.
What would be lost by that?
> One could argue that in R's pre-history we sh
On 9/2/2009 2:39 PM, Stavros Macrakis wrote:
The documentation for is.atomic and is.recursive is inconsistent with
their behavior in R 2.9.1 Windows.
? is.atomic
'is.atomic' returns 'TRUE' if 'x' is an atomic vector (or 'NULL')
and 'FALSE' otherwise.
...
'is.atomic' is true
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 1:54 PM, Stavros Macrakis wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 2:39 PM, Stavros Macrakis wrote:
>
>> Most types of language objects are regarded as recursive: those
>> which are not are the atomic vector types, 'NULL' and symbols (as
>> given by 'as.name').
>>
>> Bu
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 2:39 PM, Stavros Macrakis wrote:
> Most types of language objects are regarded as recursive: those
> which are not are the atomic vector types, 'NULL' and symbols (as
> given by 'as.name').
>
> But is.recursive(as.name('foo')) == is.recursive(quote(foo)) == FA
The documentation for is.atomic and is.recursive is inconsistent with
their behavior in R 2.9.1 Windows.
? is.atomic
'is.atomic' returns 'TRUE' if 'x' is an atomic vector (or 'NULL')
and 'FALSE' otherwise.
...
'is.atomic' is true for the atomic vector types ('"logical"',
11 matches
Mail list logo
