> Scott Kostyshak
> on Fri, 19 Jul 2013 03:34:20 -0400 writes:
> I have two comments regarding the Posting Guide:
> (1) The link in the following sentence did not work for me:
> Take care when you quote other people's comments to respect their
> rights, e.g., as summa
> "HT" == Heather Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> on Wed, 11 Jun 2008 12:50:49 +0100 writes:
HT> Okay, here's the update.
HT> I've created a new function create.post() (with Windows and Unix
HT> versions) which would be the internal function that creates the post
HT> tem
Okay, here's the update.
I've created a new function create.post() (with Windows and Unix
versions) which would be the internal function that creates the post
template ready to edit and optionally send. In the Windows version I've
added an experimental method == "mailto" option, which will ope
> "HT" == Heather Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> on Mon, 09 Jun 2008 17:21:17 +0100 writes:
HT> Thanks for the helpful tips and suggestions, I'll work
HT> them in. You get local versions of the documents on Unix
HT> too - RShowDoc() will do the trick.
HT> I'll post an up
Thanks for the helpful tips and suggestions, I'll work them in. You get
local versions of the documents on Unix too - RShowDoc() will do the trick.
I'll post an updated version in due course,
Heather
Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
That's an excellent idea.
One other item that could be checkable
That's an excellent idea.
One other item that could be checkable would
be if the user has the most recent versions of the packages involved
in the query.Perhaps it could display the unupdated packages
and ask the user if any of those are involved in the query.
Probably needs to give fair warn
Whilst it is a good idea to improve the posting guide, it seems to me
that it would be useful to have a function along the lines of
bug.report(), to help a potential questioner make sure they have done
their homework and have the relevant information to put into a post to
R-help.
Even those o
Here is another update. I have added the following:
- info about using a fresh R session. (In that case ls() output is less
essential; however, the developers of sessionInfo() might consider
adding that as a default or as an option.)
- questioner should consider use of functions.
- for dat
Might I suggest the following two additions:
For item (1), I suggest adding to the end of it something like
"Consider attaching this output/data as a txt file if it is too
large, or consider using one of the built in data sets (as produced
e.g. by data() ) if they suffice to illustrate the
Here's my attempt at making a little more friendly:
Removed self-contained - implied by reproducible
Used slightly less formal language (and you instead of the questioner)
Fixed a couple of spelling mistakes
Removed references to testing framework - I don't think that that term
needs to be introdu
Here is a second version of the summary. Its been rearranged to
place most important info at top. Also shortened it a bit.
It still needs links to example posts, as suggested. Anyone?
Summary
Surprisingly, the main problem for responders is not to answer the
posted questions but to quickly fi
Gabor,
I agree. Furthermore I think it might be useful to add that in my
experience (and I'm sure others as well) that the process of creating
a simple reproduceable example for an email to r-help will in most
cases clarify what I'm trying to do and actually solve my own problem
for me - once or t
I'd recommend either having two or three good examples
of acceptable posts at the end of the posting guide
or at least some hyperlinks to good examples. Two or
three contrasting poor posts would also be helpful.
If people can see a brief email with working code
AND the ever-essential sessionInfo(
13 matches
Mail list logo
