From mehmet.suzen at gmail.com  Thu Nov 30 13:26:14 2017
From: mehmet.suzen at gmail.com (Suzen, Mehmet)
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 13:26:14 +0100
Subject: [Rd] binary form of is() contradicts its unary form
In-Reply-To: <CALEXWq3yQadGRyhUmcJ9p7kG=2Jf55=8v-U6tNukRWnZ6_Tpdw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5A1EF8DB.6080401@fredhutch.org>
 <CAPtbhHzXe3=EBW6wwyx1Hh158qjBrC0vfFbh4+o3bRZTC+c5Kw@mail.gmail.com>
 <5A1F0EB3.7090508@fredhutch.org>
 <CAPtbhHws5Fydk0AHeq3Urh9qEZ4XM0C-BJtoRvUpnStb33G=mg@mail.gmail.com>
 <5A1F1C60.9080506@fredhutch.org>
 <CAPtbhHy4=U8V-XRtg63=eS4PAWgqQM6=-xnSmVSgdPFbuv8dxw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALEXWq3yQadGRyhUmcJ9p7kG=2Jf55=8v-U6tNukRWnZ6_Tpdw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAPtbhHx+mQtMwVoTYqi4yCFf8EujMdzH+-Ped=Q02uxDhfEP-w@mail.gmail.com>

On 30 November 2017 at 11:37, I?aki ?car <i.ucar86 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2017-11-30 3:14 GMT+01:00 Suzen, Mehmet <mehmet.suzen at gmail.com>:
>> My understanding is that there is no inconsistency. `is` does what it
>> claims, from the documentation:
>>
>> ?is?: With two arguments, tests whether ?object? can be treated as
>>           from ?class2?.
>>
>>           With one argument, returns all the super-classes of this
>>           object's class.
>
> Note that this is not in the documentation since a year ago.
>

As far as I understood and gather, starting from methods v3.3.2, the following
new reference is added:

* Chambers, John M. (2016) Extending R, Chapman & Hall. (Chapters 9 and 10.)

Pushing that details there, I assume.

Best,
Mehmet



[Rd] binary form of is() contradicts its unary form
Suzen, Mehmet