Re: [R] [FORGED] Re: [FORGED] Re: identical() versus sapply()
Short comment inline On 12/04/2016 12:45, John Kane wrote: Thank you Rolf. fortune(350) was the link I was trying to remember. I believe! I believe in the documentation. It can be incredibly difficult to document something and unless one has an editor to read and 'try' to interpret the results the original writer may not realise just how opaque the explanation is. I do not think anyone who has written documentation would disagree. Would one way forward here for the OP to suggest with the benefit of all the comments how things might be enhanced so that he would not have been baffled? John Kane Kingston ON Canada -Original Message- From: r.tur...@auckland.ac.nz Sent: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 15:34:54 +1200 To: murdoch.dun...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [R] [FORGED] Re: [FORGED] Re: identical() versus sapply() On 12/04/16 14:45, Duncan Murdoch wrote: On 11/04/2016 10:18 PM, Bert Gunter wrote: "The documentation aims to be accurate, not necessarily clear." !!! I hope that is not the case! Accurate documentation that is confusing is not very useful. I don't think it is ever intentionally confusing, but it is often concise to the point of obscurity. Words are chosen carefully, and explanations are not repeated. It takes an effort to read it. It will be clear to careful readers, but not to all readers. I was thinking of the statement quoted earlier, 'as(x, "numeric") uses the existing as.numeric function'. That is different than saying 'as(x, "numeric") is the same as as.numeric(x)'. IMHO this is so *obviously* confusing and misleading --- even though it is technically correct --- that whoever wrote it was either intentionally trying to be confusing or is unbelievably obtuse and/or out of touch with reality. It is not (again IMHO) clear even to *very* careful readers. To my mind this documentation fails even the fortune(350) test. cheers, Rolf -- Technical Editor ANZJS Department of Statistics University of Auckland Phone: +64-9-373-7599 ext. 88276 __ R-help@r-project.org mailing list -- To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code. Can't remember your password? Do you need a strong and secure password? Use Password manager! It stores your passwords & protects your account. __ R-help@r-project.org mailing list -- To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code. -- Michael http://www.dewey.myzen.co.uk/home.html __ R-help@r-project.org mailing list -- To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
Re: [R] [FORGED] Re: [FORGED] Re: identical() versus sapply()
On 11/04/2016 11:34 PM, Rolf Turner wrote: On 12/04/16 14:45, Duncan Murdoch wrote: On 11/04/2016 10:18 PM, Bert Gunter wrote: "The documentation aims to be accurate, not necessarily clear." !!! I hope that is not the case! Accurate documentation that is confusing is not very useful. I don't think it is ever intentionally confusing, but it is often concise to the point of obscurity. Words are chosen carefully, and explanations are not repeated. It takes an effort to read it. It will be clear to careful readers, but not to all readers. I was thinking of the statement quoted earlier, 'as(x, "numeric") uses the existing as.numeric function'. That is different than saying 'as(x, "numeric") is the same as as.numeric(x)'. IMHO this is so *obviously* confusing and misleading --- even though it is technically correct --- that whoever wrote it was either intentionally trying to be confusing or is unbelievably obtuse and/or out of touch with reality. It is not (again IMHO) clear even to *very* careful readers. To my mind this documentation fails even the fortune(350) test. I generally agree that that particular sentence falls pretty far out on the obscurity end of the spectrum, but it's much easier to criticize the documentation than it is to write it. I notice that none of the critics in this thread have offered improvements on what is there. I haven't looked up who wrote it (it wasn't me, though I'm sure I've written equally obscure sentences), but I do not believe it was intentionally confusing, nor is the author obtuse or out of touch with reality. I think that insulting authors is not a way to encourage them to change. That's reality. Duncan Murdoch __ R-help@r-project.org mailing list -- To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
Re: [R] [FORGED] Re: [FORGED] Re: identical() versus sapply()
Thank you Rolf. fortune(350) was the link I was trying to remember. I believe! I believe in the documentation. It can be incredibly difficult to document something and unless one has an editor to read and 'try' to interpret the results the original writer may not realise just how opaque the explanation is. John Kane Kingston ON Canada > -Original Message- > From: r.tur...@auckland.ac.nz > Sent: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 15:34:54 +1200 > To: murdoch.dun...@gmail.com > Subject: Re: [R] [FORGED] Re: [FORGED] Re: identical() versus sapply() > > On 12/04/16 14:45, Duncan Murdoch wrote: >> On 11/04/2016 10:18 PM, Bert Gunter wrote: >>> "The documentation aims to be accurate, not necessarily clear." >>> >>> !!! >>> >>> I hope that is not the case! Accurate documentation that is confusing >>> is not very useful. >> >> I don't think it is ever intentionally confusing, but it is often >> concise to the point of obscurity. Words are chosen carefully, and >> explanations are not repeated. It takes an effort to read it. It will >> be clear to careful readers, but not to all readers. >> >> I was thinking of the statement quoted earlier, 'as(x, "numeric") uses >> the existing as.numeric function'. That is different than saying 'as(x, >> "numeric") is the same as as.numeric(x)'. > > > IMHO this is so *obviously* confusing and misleading --- even though it > is technically correct --- that whoever wrote it was either > intentionally trying to be confusing or is unbelievably obtuse and/or > out of touch with reality. > > It is not (again IMHO) clear even to *very* careful readers. > > To my mind this documentation fails even the fortune(350) test. > > cheers, > > Rolf > > -- > Technical Editor ANZJS > Department of Statistics > University of Auckland > Phone: +64-9-373-7599 ext. 88276 > > __ > R-help@r-project.org mailing list -- To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help > PLEASE do read the posting guide > http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html > and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code. Can't remember your password? Do you need a strong and secure password? Use Password manager! It stores your passwords & protects your account. __ R-help@r-project.org mailing list -- To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
Re: [R] [FORGED] Re: [FORGED] Re: identical() versus sapply()
On 12/04/16 14:45, Duncan Murdoch wrote: On 11/04/2016 10:18 PM, Bert Gunter wrote: "The documentation aims to be accurate, not necessarily clear." !!! I hope that is not the case! Accurate documentation that is confusing is not very useful. I don't think it is ever intentionally confusing, but it is often concise to the point of obscurity. Words are chosen carefully, and explanations are not repeated. It takes an effort to read it. It will be clear to careful readers, but not to all readers. I was thinking of the statement quoted earlier, 'as(x, "numeric") uses the existing as.numeric function'. That is different than saying 'as(x, "numeric") is the same as as.numeric(x)'. IMHO this is so *obviously* confusing and misleading --- even though it is technically correct --- that whoever wrote it was either intentionally trying to be confusing or is unbelievably obtuse and/or out of touch with reality. It is not (again IMHO) clear even to *very* careful readers. To my mind this documentation fails even the fortune(350) test. cheers, Rolf -- Technical Editor ANZJS Department of Statistics University of Auckland Phone: +64-9-373-7599 ext. 88276 __ R-help@r-project.org mailing list -- To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
Re: [R] [FORGED] Re: [FORGED] Re: identical() versus sapply()
On 12/04/16 13:09, Duncan Murdoch wrote: The documentation aims to be accurate, not necessarily clear. Fortune nomination! cheers, Rolf -- Technical Editor ANZJS Department of Statistics University of Auckland Phone: +64-9-373-7599 ext. 88276 __ R-help@r-project.org mailing list -- To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
