From ggrothendieck at gmail.com  Wed Aug 24 20:30:38 2005
From: ggrothendieck at gmail.com (Gabor Grothendieck)
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 14:30:38 -0400
Subject: [Rd] Typo(s) in proc.time.Rd and comment about ?proc.time
	(PR#8092)
In-Reply-To: <deid3e$fnl$1@sea.gmane.org>
References: <20050824163001.677CC19052@slim.kubism.ku.dk>
	<deid3e$fnl$1@sea.gmane.org>
Message-ID: <971536df0508241130645a645c@mail.gmail.com>

On 8/24/05, dhinds at sonic.net <dhinds at sonic.net> wrote:
> ripley at stats.ox.ac.uk wrote:
> > On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 Weigand.Stephen at mayo.edu wrote:
> 
> > > I just downloaded the file
> > >
> > > ftp://ftp.stat.math.ethz.ch/Software/R/R-devel.tar.gz
> > >
> > > and within proc.time.Rd, the second paragraph of the \value
> > > section contains a typo:
> 
> > I believe your understanding of the English language is different from the
> > author here, who is English.  (You on the other hand seem to think there
> > is no need to give your country in your address when writing an addess in
> > Denmark.)  The preferred language for R documentation is English (and not
> > American).
> 
> > > The resolution of the times will be system-specific; it is common for
> > > them to be recorded to of the order of 1/100 second, and elapsed [...]
> > >                     ^^^^^
> > >
> > > I'd say replacing "to of" with just "of" would grammatically
> > > fix the sentence.
> 
> > I'd say it was correct and your correction is incorrect.  In English we
> > say `recorded to 1/100th of a second', not `recorded 1/100th second'.
> 
> The correction was incorrect, but so was the original.  I've never
> heard the expression "of the order of"; common usage (in English or
> American, as far as I know) is "on the order of".  Your "recorded to
> 1/100th of a second" is also ok.
> 
> > > Second, the \note{} section for Unix-like machines reads:
> > >
> > > It is possible to compile \R without support for \code{proc.time},
> > > when the function will throw an error.
> > >
> > > I believe this is ungrammatical and suggest replacing
> > > "when the function will throw an error" with "in which
> > > case the function will throw an error".
> 
> > Again, the statement given is the intended meaning.
> 
> I think more clear might be, "it is possible to compile R without
               ^^^^^^^^^

That should be "clearer".  Comparative adjectives with one syllable 
normally end in er rather than using more.  :)

> support for proc.time, when the function *would* throw an error".
> 
> -- Dave



[Rd] Typo(s) in proc.time.Rd and comment about ?proc.time (PR#8092)
Gabor Grothendieck