From maechler at stat.math.ethz.ch  Wed Apr  1 09:36:07 2009
From: maechler at stat.math.ethz.ch (Martin Maechler)
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 09:36:07 +0200
Subject: [Rd] Gamma funtion(s) bug
In-Reply-To: <loom.20090331T150244-162@post.gmane.org>
References: <49D12D9F.1000203@stats.uwo.ca>
	<XFMail.090330222854.Ted.Harding@manchester.ac.uk>
	<18897.49007.275534.467989@lynne.math.ethz.ch>
	<loom.20090331T150244-162@post.gmane.org>
Message-ID: <18899.6503.896682.355534@lynne.math.ethz.ch>

>>>>> "BB" == Ben Bolker <bolker at ufl.edu>
>>>>>     on Tue, 31 Mar 2009 15:08:45 +0000 (UTC) writes:

    BB> Martin Maechler <maechler <at> stat.math.ethz.ch> writes:
    >> >> But lgamma(x) is log(abs(gamma(x))), so it looks okay to me.
    >> >> 
    >> >> Duncan Murdoch
    >> 
    TH> Oops, yes! That's what comes of talking off the top of my head
    TH> (I don't think I've ever had occasion to evaluate lgamma(x)
    TH> for negative x, so never consciously checked in ?lgamma).
    >> 
    TH> Thanks, Duncan!
    >> 
    >> Indeed.... as we all know, a picture can be worth a thousand words,
    >> and a simple R call such as
    >> plot(lgamma, -7, 0, n=1000)
    >> would have saved many words, and notably spared us from
    >> yet-another erroneous non-bug report.
    >> 
    >> Martin

    BB> In Kjetil's defense, he didn't submit an actual bug report --
    BB> and although his subject line does contain the word "bug",
    BB> I read his "bug report" as asking a question.  

    BB> People are allowed to make mistakes ...

definitely! We all are.

Using 'bug' (without any qualifying "?" or "possible" ..) 
in the subject line is still a bit unfriendly...

    BB> While I was reading ?lgamma I noticed that the "See Also"
    BB> section refers to gammaCody(), which is now defunct.  Perhaps
    BB> remove the sentence?

Yes. Thank you, Ben!
Regards, Martin Maechler

    BB> Ben Bolker



[Rd] Gamma funtion(s) bug
Martin Maechler