From h.wickham at gmail.com  Tue Nov 25 23:08:12 2008
From: h.wickham at gmail.com (hadley wickham)
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 16:08:12 -0600
Subject: [Rd] Suggestions for improving R-FAQ
In-Reply-To: <6731304c0811251310m950a5cfu5a6209025c94c98a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <f8e6ff050811251041u589c4b0x9a9387744237d946@mail.gmail.com>
	<6731304c0811251310m950a5cfu5a6209025c94c98a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f8e6ff050811251408o482c1bfdq7974721cd6709d4@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 3:10 PM, Max Kuhn <mxkuhn at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hadley,
>
> These are good suggestions.
>
>>  * Remove infrequently asked questions - e.g. 2.3, 2.4, 7.9, 7.11,
>> 7.12, 7.15, 7.19, 7.23, 7.28

Maybe 7.28 should be titled: How can I make read.table (and read.csv
and read.fwf)) faster?  But personally, I've never found it made much
difference - even with a few hundred thousand rows, it takes longer
for me to re-remember the colClasses syntax than load in the data.
I'm not sure why I thought 7.23 should go.

> Sampling bias might be an issue: we don't get questions (to r-help)
> for those because those are in the FAQ. Perhaps that is wishful
> thinking on my part.

It's a possibility, but it seems unlikely that after paging through
125 pages of material to read 7.23 and 7.28 people would stop before
getting to 7.31

-- 
http://had.co.nz/



[Rd] Suggestions for improving R-FAQ
hadley wickham