From hj at jhu.edu  Fri Apr 10 05:39:44 2015
From: hj at jhu.edu (Harris A. Jaffee)
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2015 23:39:44 -0400
Subject: [Rd] typo in R-exts.html section 6.9
In-Reply-To: <CAF8bMcbCtP78rA1hstR4RsUkVu=GrF-gyr80fUMug=gb5CtDsQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAF8bMcbCtP78rA1hstR4RsUkVu=GrF-gyr80fUMug=gb5CtDsQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <17E24C54-B36B-4185-A199-04B2E9933D4B@jhu.edu>

I agree, and the text is less than ideal in several other places.
But I don't especially like your phrase 'infinite range', even
though the idea is right.  I think the necessary terminology
already exists.  How about something like this?

 There are interfaces (defined in header R_ext/Applic.h) for definite
 ("proper") and for _improper_ integrals, improper meaning that at 
 least one of the limits of integration is infinite.

Moving ahead, I would use Definite and Improper for "Finite:" and
"Indefinite:".

> On Apr 9, 2015, at 7:13 PM, William Dunlap <wdunlap at tibco.com> wrote:
> 
> In 'Writing R Extensions' section 6.9 there is the paragraph
> 
> There are interfaces (defined in header R_ext/Applic.h) for definite and
> for indefinite integrals. ?Indefinite? means that at least one of the
> integration boundaries is not finite.
> 
> An indefinite integral usually means an antiderivative, not an integral
> over an infinite spread.  Should that first sentence end with 'for
> integrals over finite and infinite ranges' and the second sentence omitted?
> 
> Bill Dunlap
> TIBCO Software
> wdunlap tibco.com
> 
> 	[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
> 
> ______________________________________________
> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel



[Rd] typo in R-exts.html section 6.9
Harris A. Jaffee