From murdoch at stats.uwo.ca  Fri Sep  4 03:22:36 2009
From: murdoch at stats.uwo.ca (Duncan Murdoch)
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2009 21:22:36 -0400
Subject: [Rd] Documentation for is.atomic and is.recursive
In-Reply-To: <8b356f880909031436j991fb05m4d9e7c1da646f5a0@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8b356f880909021139pa07d922q1f1c28a0fb70cdbe@mail.gmail.com>	<4A9EC967.3080507@stats.uwo.ca>	<8b356f880909021310l3805de62g2c2467db9a1591d2@mail.gmail.com>	<4A9EE3D8.7040008@stats.uwo.ca>
	<8b356f880909031436j991fb05m4d9e7c1da646f5a0@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4AA06BDC.8050809@stats.uwo.ca>

On 03/09/2009 5:36 PM, Stavros Macrakis wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 5:30 PM, Duncan Murdoch<murdoch at stats.uwo.ca> wrote:
>> On 02/09/2009 4:10 PM, Stavros Macrakis wrote:
> ...
>>> I would nonetheless claim that the documentation as currently written
>>> is at best ambiguous and confusing, and would benefit from improved
>>> wording.
>> A claim that documentation would benefit from improved wording is a
>> tautology.  A claim that the documentation is ambiguous requires more
>> evidence than you've offered.  You have demonstrated that someone could be
>> confused when reading it, but that isn't necessarily our responsibility.
> 
> Of course not.  I forgot.  This is r-devel: the user is always wrong,
> the developer is always right.

Yes, you want r-whinge.  That's down the hall.

Duncan Murdoch



[Rd] Documentation for is.atomic and is.recursive
Duncan Murdoch