From Achim.Zeileis at wu-wien.ac.at  Mon Jan 30 14:33:22 2006
From: Achim.Zeileis at wu-wien.ac.at (Achim Zeileis)
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 14:33:22 +0100
Subject: [Rd] Mosaicplot coloring (PR#8537)
In-Reply-To: <43DE0C4A.90101@phon.ox.ac.uk>
References: <20060129183011.D2682C777@slim.kubism.ku.dk>
	<Pine.LNX.4.58.0601300926120.2745@thorin.ci.tuwien.ac.at>
	<43DDF240.8050901@phon.ox.ac.uk>
	<Pine.LNX.4.58.0601301212120.3488@thorin.ci.tuwien.ac.at>
	<43DE0C4A.90101@phon.ox.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <20060130143322.3fd712c5.Achim.Zeileis@wu-wien.ac.at>

Greg:

> OK.  Call it that if you want, though I expect that I share
> the bug with many other people.

What I tried to say here was: Reports of user errors do not belong on
R-bugs. A request on R-help would have been more likely to generate a
useful, friendly and widely shared reply/discussion.

> The problem I see is that you (as a representative for the r-project)
> are the wrong person to judge the success or failure of the
> documentation.    You presumably know the software in detail.
> Documentation is (to at least some degree) intended for use by
> people who _do_not_ know the software well.

What I tried to say here was: The main problem is neither the software
nor the documentation, but the way you use it and interpret its results.
 
> Expecting a package's developer to judge documentation is
> like asking a bald man to judge which comb is best.  

I would never make recommendations about combs.

> > Note that I'm neither the author of the mosaicplot() function nor
> > its manual page.
> 
> Just out of curiosity,
> why are you responding to bug reports that you don't
> have the power to fix?

Because you did not report a bug. Furthermore, I thought I could
give you a helpful pointer to other solutions to your problem.

FYI: Meanwhile, R-core has signalled that they would add a cross
reference to vcd in this case. Hence, I'll suggest a documentation
patch to R-core.

Best regards,
Z



[Rd] Mosaicplot coloring (PR#8537)
Achim Zeileis