Cc:
Date: 12/08/2010 10:43 AM
Subject:RE: [Rd] Suggested change to integrate.Rd (was: Re: 0.5 !=
integrate(dnorm, 0, 2) = 0)
Hi,
My honest and (not so) humble opinion is that no amount of clear and
explicit warning can totally prevent the inappropriate use of a
uot;'John Nolan'",
Cc:
Date: 12/08/2010 10:43 AM
Subject:RE: [Rd] Suggested change to integrate.Rd (was: Re: 0.5 !=
integrate(dnorm, 0, 2) = 0)
Hi,
My honest and (not so) humble opinion is that no amount of clear and
explicit warnin
ember 07, 2010 11:09 PM
To: spencer.gra...@structuremonitoring.com
Cc: r-devel@r-project.org
Subject: Re: [Rd] Suggested change to integrate.Rd (was: Re: 0.5 !=
integrate(dnorm, 0, 2) = 0)
R developers understand intimately how things work, and terse
descriptions are sufficient. However,
Hi, John:
Maybe change it to something like "gives wrong answer without warning on
many systems (see 'Note' above)", as the 'Note' does provide more detail.
Thanks,
Spencer
On 12/7/2010 8:08 PM, John Nolan wrote:
R developers understand intimately how things work, and terse
descriptions a
If changes are to be made to integrate it would be nice if the following
was fixed:
> integrate(dnorm, -Inf, -Inf)
1 with absolute error < 9.4e-05
Note that integrate manages ok when not dealing with Inf or -Inf:
> integrate(dnorm, -500, -500)
0 with absolute error < 0
David Scott
On 8/12/2
R developers understand intimately how things work, and terse
descriptions are sufficient. However, most typical R users
would benefit from clearer documentation. In multiple places
I've found the R documentation to be correct and understandable
AFTER I've figured a function out.
And to be
What do you think about changing the verbiage with that example
in "integrate.Rd" from "fails on many systems" to something like
"gives wrong answer without warning on many systems"?
If I had write access to the core R code, I'd change this
myself: I'm probably not the only user w
