From ehlers at ucalgary.ca  Mon Apr 25 19:16:32 2011
From: ehlers at ucalgary.ca (Peter Ehlers)
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 10:16:32 -0700
Subject: [Rd] possible minor doc clarification?
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTimax_nSRi+B5fE=0jbA7YDkijmsbQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BANLkTimax_nSRi+B5fE=0jbA7YDkijmsbQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4DB5AC70.3040001@ucalgary.ca>

On 2011-04-25 08:47, Sean O'Riordain wrote:
> Good afternoon,
>
> As a clarification does it make sense to remove the second 'not' in the 'See
> Also' documentation for file_test ?

Both versions make sense to me; it's just a question of
whether we think of testing for x 'being a directory'
or for x 'not being a directory'.

The code (for the '-f' op) actually tests !isdir and
so the current wording reflects the code.

Peter Ehlers

>
> Kind regards,
> Sean O'Riordain
>
> -----
> Index: src/library/utils/man/filetest.Rd
> ===================================================================
> --- src/library/utils/man/filetest.Rd   (revision 55639)
> +++ src/library/utils/man/filetest.Rd   (working copy)
> @@ -35,7 +35,7 @@
>   }
>   \seealso{
>     \code{\link{file.exists}} which only tests for existence
> -  (\code{test -e} on some systems) but not for not being a directory.
> +  (\code{test -e} on some systems) but not for being a directory.
>
>     \code{\link{file.path}}, \code{\link{file.info}}
>   }
>
> 	[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
>
> ______________________________________________
> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel



[Rd] possible minor doc clarification?
Peter Ehlers