From dmurdoch at pair.com  Thu Jun 12 14:53:55 2003
From: dmurdoch at pair.com (Duncan Murdoch)
Date: Thu Jun 12 19:51:20 2003
Subject: Documenting classes and methods: was [Rd] Re: R-devel Digest,
	Vol 3, Issue 23
In-Reply-To: <16100.14359.920512.374624@mithrandir.hornik.net>
References: <5.2.0.9.1.20030524221045.00abf6c8@imaphost.wehi.edu.au>
	<3ED22894.57F62EB7@research.bell-labs.com>
	<16100.14359.920512.374624@mithrandir.hornik.net>
Message-ID: <jbfhevku16rbrrqe4lq3fg2tse52ti9sds@4ax.com>

On Mon, 9 Jun 2003 09:32:39 +0200, you wrote in message
<16100.14359.920512.374624@mithrandir.hornik.net>:


>Re using 'foo-methods' as an alias, I am not sure whether this is
>necessary in the long run.  To find out which methods are available, we
>can use showMethod().  We should eventually [see below] be able to do
>something like
>
>  method ? f(x="character", y = "numeric")
>
>to access the documentation object for the given signature, and there is
>no guarantee that an f-methods Rd object really documents all methods
>for the generic f in the package.  So I think eventually we should get
>rid of the default foo-methods alias, and just dump the ones
>corresponding to available methods.

I hope that at this point we also implement

 ?f(x,y)

at this point, to give the same result (where x and y are existing
objects of classes "character" and "numeric", respectively).  

Duncan Murdoch


Documenting classes and methods: was [Rd] Re: R-devel Digest, Vol 3, Issue 23
Duncan Murdoch