Re: [Rd] Posting Guide: changed link and other comment
Scott Kostyshak skost...@princeton.edu on Fri, 19 Jul 2013 03:34:20 -0400 writes: I have two comments regarding the Posting Guide: (1) The link in the following sentence did not work for me: Take care when you quote other people's comments to respect their rights, e.g., as summarized here[a]. [a] http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/help/policy/copyright.htm Has it been changed to the following? http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/copyrightissues.html (2) Regarding the following extract `If you feel insulted by some response to a post of yours, don't make any hasty response in return - you're as likely as not to regret it.' wouldn't someone who is `as likely as not to regret it' be indifferent between sending a hasty response and not sending a hasty response? The intent is perfectly clear but perhaps `you're _more_ likely than not' is a more probabilistically correct expression? Thanks for the helpful document -- it is useful reading for this list as well as more generally. Thank you, Scott. I've made both amendments that you've proposed above. The 2nd one is most probably more helpful for non-native English readers/speakers may .. when it may be nice and better style for some flavor of real English .. Martin Scott -- Scott Kostyshak Economics PhD Candidate Princeton University __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
[Rd] Posting Guide: changed link and other comment
I have two comments regarding the Posting Guide: (1) The link in the following sentence did not work for me: Take care when you quote other people's comments to respect their rights, e.g., as summarized here[a]. [a] http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/help/policy/copyright.htm Has it been changed to the following? http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/copyrightissues.html (2) Regarding the following extract `If you feel insulted by some response to a post of yours, don't make any hasty response in return - you're as likely as not to regret it.' wouldn't someone who is `as likely as not to regret it' be indifferent between sending a hasty response and not sending a hasty response? The intent is perfectly clear but perhaps `you're _more_ likely than not' is a more probabilistically correct expression? Thanks for the helpful document -- it is useful reading for this list as well as more generally. Scott -- Scott Kostyshak Economics PhD Candidate Princeton University __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Re: [Rd] Posting Guide - help.request() function?
Okay, here's the update. I've created a new function create.post() (with Windows and Unix versions) which would be the internal function that creates the post template ready to edit and optionally send. In the Windows version I've added an experimental method == mailto option, which will open the post template in the default mailer (e.g. Outlook) ready to edit and post. Maybe a Unix version would also be nice, e.g. browseURL(mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] bugbody=%0Ainsert bug report here%0A%0A%0A%0A--please do not edit the information below--%0A%0AVersion:%0A platform = x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu%0A ...) would open the post template in e.g. Thunderbird, but has the side effect of opening an empty page in the web browser. I don't know if there's a neater solution? The create.post() function is basically the old bug.report() with two extra arguments: 'description' (e.g. bug report) and 'instructions' (e.g. \\nType your message here\\n) for customization. It could be used directly e.g to post to R-devel with session information. The new bug.report() simply calls create.post() with the appropriate arguments. The improved help-request() function calls create.post() after running through the checks described before. In response to Gabor's comments, help.request(): - now checks packages are up-to-date and gives option to update on-the-fly (user may not know whether involved in query, so check all) - keeps default mailing options as in old bug.report() but create.post() gives clearer message (Email the post now?\n (yes/no)) requiring definite response (yes vs y) - still uses online documents because some are only available online (R Site Search, posting guide), it ensures the most up-to-date documentation is used, and it allows direction to global FAQ page, avoiding need to check whether user is on Windows/Mac - uses more robust method of checking R version is up-to-date I've also written a help file for help.request() which includes the method=mailto option. The help file for bug.report would need updating if this option was kept. Best wishes, Heather Martin Maechler wrote: HT == Heather Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Mon, 09 Jun 2008 17:21:17 +0100 writes: HT Thanks for the helpful tips and suggestions, I'll work HT them in. You get local versions of the documents on Unix HT too - RShowDoc() will do the trick. HT I'll post an updated version in due course, Thank you, Heather and Gabor (and the other contributors). Indeed, I too like the idea of providing a new R function for this. Ideally, Heather, you'd try to factor out some of the common functionality of bug.report() and help.request() into a few utils-namespace hidden auxiliary functions. Ideally, you'd attach text/plain attachments (base64 encoded) so there won't be line wrap arounds. Martin HT Gabor Grothendieck wrote: That's an excellent idea. One other item that could be checkable would be if the user has the most recent versions of the packages involved in the query. Perhaps it could display the unupdated packages and ask the user if any of those are involved in the query. Probably needs to give fair warning that it is sending off an email so people don't wind up sending out emails when they are really just trying out the system. Probably none should be the default for email so that its not regarded as obnoxious. Might be nice if it used local versions of documents if they exist locally. On Windows they do. Check out ?getRversion On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 10:35 AM, Dr Heather Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Whilst it is a good idea to improve the posting guide, it seems to me that it would be useful to have a function along the lines of bug.report(), to help a potential questioner make sure they have done their homework and have the relevant information to put into a post to R-help. Even those of us who know what ought to go into a post can sometimes forget to check something obvious - I recently got caught out by not checking an error was reproducible in the patched version for example. So I have written a help.request() function (see below), which - prompts the user to check the relevant resources, stopping and opening the relevant url where necessary - checks their R version is up-to-date (in a rather messy way - please suggest improvements!) - prompts them to prepare appropriate example code and test it in a fresh R session - prompts them to give a meaningful subject line - automatically adds system info to the post (as in bug.report) - sends the message for them (ensuring a fresh thread is started) Is this an idea worth taking further? I would be happy to make improvements as suggested and write a help file if so. Heather
Re: [Rd] Posting Guide - help.request() function?
HT == Heather Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
on Wed, 11 Jun 2008 12:50:49 +0100 writes:
HT Okay, here's the update.
HT I've created a new function create.post() (with Windows and Unix
HT versions) which would be the internal function that creates the post
HT template ready to edit and optionally send. In the Windows version I've
HT added an experimental method == mailto option, which will open the
HT post template in the default mailer (e.g. Outlook) ready to edit and
HT post. Maybe a Unix version would also be nice, e.g.
HT browseURL(mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] bugbody=%0Ainsert
HT bug report here%0A%0A%0A%0A--please do not edit the information
HT below--%0A%0AVersion:%0A platform = x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu%0A ...)
HT would open the post template in e.g. Thunderbird, but has the side
HT effect of opening an empty page in the web browser. I don't know if
HT there's a neater solution?
Well, the current solution {for bug.report()} seems quite
desirable to me on unix.
HT The create.post() function is basically the old bug.report() with two
HT extra arguments: 'description' (e.g. bug report) and 'instructions'
HT (e.g. \\nType your message here\\n) for customization. It could
be
HT used directly e.g to post to R-devel with session information.
HT The new bug.report() simply calls create.post() with the appropriate
HT arguments.
Thank you; that's a really nice example of code reuse!
HT The improved help-request() function calls create.post() after running
HT through the checks described before.
HT In response to Gabor's comments, help.request():
HT - now checks packages are up-to-date and gives option to update
HT on-the-fly (user may not know whether involved in query, so check all)
This is a bit problematic as now.
E.g., we have about 1500 packages installed, and inspite of automatic
updating, never all are current, and the updating should typically
not happen on a user (but a site-wide) level anyway.
Also, the call to old.packages() takes minutes (the
first time in an R session) if you have so many packages in a
dozen libraries.
This should really not interfere with an e-mail for help,
rather I think that the packages-up-to-date check
should only happen for those non-standard packages that are
currently in use as from sessionInfo().
Unfortunately, that functionality to do that is not yet there
in old.packages(), but I am about to add that option to R-devel
as well.
No need to send me a new version of your code, BTW, since I have
already worked on it in several places.
HT - keeps default mailing options as in old bug.report() but
HT create.post() gives clearer message (Email the post now?\n (yes/no))
HT requiring definite response (yes vs y)
ok.
HT - still uses online documents because some are only available online
HT (R Site Search, posting guide), it ensures the most up-to-date
HT documentation is used, and it allows direction to global FAQ page,
HT avoiding need to check whether user is on Windows/Mac
HT - uses more robust method of checking R version is up-to-date
HT I've also written a help file for help.request() which includes the
HT method=mailto option.
ok {it did need some correction}.
HT The help file for bug.report would need updating
HT if this option was kept.
I think this is mainly a windows feature (but maybe not).
I'd definitely like to get some feedback from Windows users
about this.
HT Best wishes,
HT Heather
Thanks again, Heather, for this.
This is becoming a very nice new feature!
Martin
__
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Re: [Rd] Posting Guide - help.request() function?
Whilst it is a good idea to improve the posting guide, it seems to me
that it would be useful to have a function along the lines of
bug.report(), to help a potential questioner make sure they have done
their homework and have the relevant information to put into a post to
R-help.
Even those of us who know what ought to go into a post can sometimes
forget to check something obvious - I recently got caught out by not
checking an error was reproducible in the patched version for example.
So I have written a help.request() function (see below), which
- prompts the user to check the relevant resources, stopping and opening
the relevant url where necessary
- checks their R version is up-to-date (in a rather messy way - please
suggest improvements!)
- prompts them to prepare appropriate example code and test it in a
fresh R session
- prompts them to give a meaningful subject line
- automatically adds system info to the post (as in bug.report)
- sends the message for them (ensuring a fresh thread is started)
Is this an idea worth taking further? I would be happy to make
improvements as suggested and write a help file if so.
Heather
help.request - function (subject = ,
ccaddress = Sys.getenv(USER),
method = getOption(mailer),
address = [EMAIL PROTECTED],
file = R.help.request)
{
no - function(answer) answer == n
yes - function(answer) answer == y
go - function(url) {
cat(Please do this first - the site has been loaded in your
web browser\n)
browseURL(url)
}
cat(Checklist:\n)
post - readline(Have you read the posting guide? (y/n) )
if (no(post)) return(go(http://www.r-project.org/posting-guide.html;))
FAQ - readline(Have you checked the FAQ? (y/n) )
if (no(FAQ)) return(go(http://cran.r-project.org/faqs.html;))
intro - readline(Have you checked An Introduction to R? (y/n) )
if (no(intro))
return(go(http://cran.r-project.org/doc/manuals/R-intro.html;))
NEWS - readline(Have you checked the NEWS of the latest
development release? (y/n) )
if (no(NEWS)) return(go(https://svn.r-project.org/R/trunk/NEWS;))
rsitesearch - readline(Have you looked on RSiteSearch? (y/n) )
if (no(rsitesearch)) {
cat(Please do this first - the site has been loaded in your
web browser\n)
return(RSiteSearch(subject))
}
inf - sessionInfo()
if (otherPkgs %in% names(inf)){
other - readline(You have packages other than the base
packages loaded.,
\nIf your query relates to one of these,
have you ,
checked any corresponding books/manuals \nand ,
considered contacting the package
maintainer? (y/n/NA) )
if(no(other)) return(Please do this first.)
}
man - url(http://cran.r-project.org/manuals.html;)
ver - scan(man, what = character(0), sep = \n, skip = 13, nlines
= 1, quiet = TRUE)
major - as.numeric(substr(ver, start = 18, stop = 18))
minor - as.numeric(substr(ver, start = 20, stop = 22))
if (major as.numeric(R.Version()$major) ||
minor as.numeric(R.Version()$major)) {
update - readline(Your R version is out-of-date, would you
like to update now? (y/n) )
if (yes(update)) {
return(go(getOption(repos)))
}
}
## To get long prompt!
cat(Have you written example code that is\n,
- minimal\n - reproducible\n - self-contained\n - commented,
\nusing data that is either\n,
- constructed by the code\n - loaded by data()\n,
- reproduced using dump(\mydata\, file = \\)\n)
code - readline(paste(have you checked this code in a fresh R
session,
\n(invoking R with the --vanilla option if
possible),
\nand is this code copied to the clipboard?
(y/n) ))
if (no(code))
return(cat(\nIf your query is not directly related to code,
(e.g. a general query \nabout R's capabilities),,
email [EMAIL PROTECTED] directly. ,
\nOtherwise prepare some example code first.\n))
change - readline(paste(Would you like to change your subject
line:\n,
subject, \nto something more meaningful?
(y/n) ))
if (yes(change))
subject - readline(Enter subject: \n)
methods - c(mailx, gnudoit, none, ess)
method - if (is.null(method))
none
else methods[pmatch(method, methods)]
body - paste(\\nWrite your query here, using your example code
to illustrate,
\\nEnd with your name and affiliation\\n\\n\\n\\n,
--please do not edit the information below--\\n\\n,
Version:\\n , paste(names(R.version), R.version,
sep = = ,
collapse =
Re: [Rd] Posting Guide - help.request() function?
That's an excellent idea.
One other item that could be checkable would
be if the user has the most recent versions of the packages involved
in the query.Perhaps it could display the unupdated packages
and ask the user if any of those are involved in the query.
Probably needs to give fair warning that it is sending
off an email so people don't wind up sending out emails when they
are really just trying out the system. Probably none should be the
default for email so that its not regarded as obnoxious.
Might be nice if it used local versions of documents if they exist
locally. On Windows they do.
Check out ?getRversion
On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 10:35 AM, Dr Heather Turner
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Whilst it is a good idea to improve the posting guide, it seems to me that
it would be useful to have a function along the lines of bug.report(), to
help a potential questioner make sure they have done their homework and have
the relevant information to put into a post to R-help.
Even those of us who know what ought to go into a post can sometimes forget
to check something obvious - I recently got caught out by not checking an
error was reproducible in the patched version for example.
So I have written a help.request() function (see below), which
- prompts the user to check the relevant resources, stopping and opening the
relevant url where necessary
- checks their R version is up-to-date (in a rather messy way - please
suggest improvements!)
- prompts them to prepare appropriate example code and test it in a fresh R
session
- prompts them to give a meaningful subject line
- automatically adds system info to the post (as in bug.report)
- sends the message for them (ensuring a fresh thread is started)
Is this an idea worth taking further? I would be happy to make improvements
as suggested and write a help file if so.
Heather
help.request - function (subject = ,
ccaddress = Sys.getenv(USER),
method = getOption(mailer),
address = [EMAIL PROTECTED],
file = R.help.request)
{
no - function(answer) answer == n
yes - function(answer) answer == y
go - function(url) {
cat(Please do this first - the site has been loaded in your web
browser\n)
browseURL(url)
}
cat(Checklist:\n)
post - readline(Have you read the posting guide? (y/n) )
if (no(post)) return(go(http://www.r-project.org/posting-guide.html;))
FAQ - readline(Have you checked the FAQ? (y/n) )
if (no(FAQ)) return(go(http://cran.r-project.org/faqs.html;))
intro - readline(Have you checked An Introduction to R? (y/n) )
if (no(intro))
return(go(http://cran.r-project.org/doc/manuals/R-intro.html;))
NEWS - readline(Have you checked the NEWS of the latest development
release? (y/n) )
if (no(NEWS)) return(go(https://svn.r-project.org/R/trunk/NEWS;))
rsitesearch - readline(Have you looked on RSiteSearch? (y/n) )
if (no(rsitesearch)) {
cat(Please do this first - the site has been loaded in your web
browser\n)
return(RSiteSearch(subject))
}
inf - sessionInfo()
if (otherPkgs %in% names(inf)){
other - readline(You have packages other than the base packages
loaded.,
\nIf your query relates to one of these, have you
,
checked any corresponding books/manuals \nand ,
considered contacting the package maintainer?
(y/n/NA) )
if(no(other)) return(Please do this first.)
}
man - url(http://cran.r-project.org/manuals.html;)
ver - scan(man, what = character(0), sep = \n, skip = 13, nlines = 1,
quiet = TRUE)
major - as.numeric(substr(ver, start = 18, stop = 18))
minor - as.numeric(substr(ver, start = 20, stop = 22))
if (major as.numeric(R.Version()$major) ||
minor as.numeric(R.Version()$major)) {
update - readline(Your R version is out-of-date, would you like to
update now? (y/n) )
if (yes(update)) {
return(go(getOption(repos)))
}
}
## To get long prompt!
cat(Have you written example code that is\n,
- minimal\n - reproducible\n - self-contained\n - commented,
\nusing data that is either\n,
- constructed by the code\n - loaded by data()\n,
- reproduced using dump(\mydata\, file = \\)\n)
code - readline(paste(have you checked this code in a fresh R session,
\n(invoking R with the --vanilla option if
possible),
\nand is this code copied to the clipboard? (y/n)
))
if (no(code))
return(cat(\nIf your query is not directly related to code,
(e.g. a general query \nabout R's capabilities),,
email [EMAIL PROTECTED] directly. ,
\nOtherwise prepare some example code
Re: [Rd] Posting Guide - help.request() function?
Thanks for the helpful tips and suggestions, I'll work them in. You get
local versions of the documents on Unix too - RShowDoc() will do the trick.
I'll post an updated version in due course,
Heather
Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
That's an excellent idea.
One other item that could be checkable would
be if the user has the most recent versions of the packages involved
in the query.Perhaps it could display the unupdated packages
and ask the user if any of those are involved in the query.
Probably needs to give fair warning that it is sending
off an email so people don't wind up sending out emails when they
are really just trying out the system. Probably none should be the
default for email so that its not regarded as obnoxious.
Might be nice if it used local versions of documents if they exist
locally. On Windows they do.
Check out ?getRversion
On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 10:35 AM, Dr Heather Turner
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Whilst it is a good idea to improve the posting guide, it seems to me that
it would be useful to have a function along the lines of bug.report(), to
help a potential questioner make sure they have done their homework and have
the relevant information to put into a post to R-help.
Even those of us who know what ought to go into a post can sometimes forget
to check something obvious - I recently got caught out by not checking an
error was reproducible in the patched version for example.
So I have written a help.request() function (see below), which
- prompts the user to check the relevant resources, stopping and opening the
relevant url where necessary
- checks their R version is up-to-date (in a rather messy way - please
suggest improvements!)
- prompts them to prepare appropriate example code and test it in a fresh R
session
- prompts them to give a meaningful subject line
- automatically adds system info to the post (as in bug.report)
- sends the message for them (ensuring a fresh thread is started)
Is this an idea worth taking further? I would be happy to make improvements
as suggested and write a help file if so.
Heather
help.request - function (subject = ,
ccaddress = Sys.getenv(USER),
method = getOption(mailer),
address = [EMAIL PROTECTED],
file = R.help.request)
{
no - function(answer) answer == n
yes - function(answer) answer == y
go - function(url) {
cat(Please do this first - the site has been loaded in your web
browser\n)
browseURL(url)
}
cat(Checklist:\n)
post - readline(Have you read the posting guide? (y/n) )
if (no(post)) return(go(http://www.r-project.org/posting-guide.html;))
FAQ - readline(Have you checked the FAQ? (y/n) )
if (no(FAQ)) return(go(http://cran.r-project.org/faqs.html;))
intro - readline(Have you checked An Introduction to R? (y/n) )
if (no(intro))
return(go(http://cran.r-project.org/doc/manuals/R-intro.html;))
NEWS - readline(Have you checked the NEWS of the latest development
release? (y/n) )
if (no(NEWS)) return(go(https://svn.r-project.org/R/trunk/NEWS;))
rsitesearch - readline(Have you looked on RSiteSearch? (y/n) )
if (no(rsitesearch)) {
cat(Please do this first - the site has been loaded in your web
browser\n)
return(RSiteSearch(subject))
}
inf - sessionInfo()
if (otherPkgs %in% names(inf)){
other - readline(You have packages other than the base packages
loaded.,
\nIf your query relates to one of these, have you
,
checked any corresponding books/manuals \nand ,
considered contacting the package maintainer?
(y/n/NA) )
if(no(other)) return(Please do this first.)
}
man - url(http://cran.r-project.org/manuals.html;)
ver - scan(man, what = character(0), sep = \n, skip = 13, nlines = 1,
quiet = TRUE)
major - as.numeric(substr(ver, start = 18, stop = 18))
minor - as.numeric(substr(ver, start = 20, stop = 22))
if (major as.numeric(R.Version()$major) ||
minor as.numeric(R.Version()$major)) {
update - readline(Your R version is out-of-date, would you like to
update now? (y/n) )
if (yes(update)) {
return(go(getOption(repos)))
}
}
## To get long prompt!
cat(Have you written example code that is\n,
- minimal\n - reproducible\n - self-contained\n - commented,
\nusing data that is either\n,
- constructed by the code\n - loaded by data()\n,
- reproduced using dump(\mydata\, file = \\)\n)
code - readline(paste(have you checked this code in a fresh R session,
\n(invoking R with the --vanilla option if
possible),
\nand is this code copied to the clipboard? (y/n)
))
if (no(code))
return(cat(\nIf your query is not directly related to code,
(e.g. a general
Re: [Rd] Posting Guide - help.request() function?
HT == Heather Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
on Mon, 09 Jun 2008 17:21:17 +0100 writes:
HT Thanks for the helpful tips and suggestions, I'll work
HT them in. You get local versions of the documents on Unix
HT too - RShowDoc() will do the trick.
HT I'll post an updated version in due course,
Thank you, Heather and Gabor (and the other contributors).
Indeed, I too like the idea of providing a new R function for
this.
Ideally, Heather, you'd try to factor out some of the common
functionality of bug.report() and help.request() into a few
utils-namespace hidden auxiliary functions.
Ideally, you'd attach text/plain attachments (base64 encoded) so
there won't be line wrap arounds.
Martin
HT Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
That's an excellent idea.
One other item that could be checkable would be if the
user has the most recent versions of the packages
involved in the query. Perhaps it could display the
unupdated packages and ask the user if any of those are
involved in the query.
Probably needs to give fair warning that it is sending
off an email so people don't wind up sending out emails
when they are really just trying out the system.
Probably none should be the default for email so that
its not regarded as obnoxious.
Might be nice if it used local versions of documents if
they exist locally. On Windows they do.
Check out ?getRversion
On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 10:35 AM, Dr Heather Turner
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Whilst it is a good idea to improve the posting guide,
it seems to me that it would be useful to have a
function along the lines of bug.report(), to help a
potential questioner make sure they have done their
homework and have the relevant information to put into a
post to R-help.
Even those of us who know what ought to go into a post
can sometimes forget to check something obvious - I
recently got caught out by not checking an error was
reproducible in the patched version for example.
So I have written a help.request() function (see below),
which - prompts the user to check the relevant
resources, stopping and opening the relevant url where
necessary - checks their R version is up-to-date (in a
rather messy way - please suggest improvements!) -
prompts them to prepare appropriate example code and
test it in a fresh R session - prompts them to give a
meaningful subject line - automatically adds system info
to the post (as in bug.report) - sends the message for
them (ensuring a fresh thread is started)
Is this an idea worth taking further? I would be happy
to make improvements as suggested and write a help file
if so.
Heather
help.request - function (subject = , ccaddress =
Sys.getenv(USER), method = getOption(mailer),
address = [EMAIL PROTECTED], file =
R.help.request) { no - function(answer) answer == n
yes - function(answer) answer == y go -
function(url) { cat(Please do this first - the site has
been loaded in your web browser\n) browseURL(url) }
cat(Checklist:\n) post - readline(Have you read the
posting guide? (y/n) ) if (no(post))
return(go(http://www.r-project.org/posting-guide.html;))
FAQ - readline(Have you checked the FAQ? (y/n) ) if
(no(FAQ))
return(go(http://cran.r-project.org/faqs.html;)) intro
- readline(Have you checked An Introduction to R?
(y/n) ) if (no(intro))
return(go(http://cran.r-project.org/doc/manuals/R-intro.html;))
NEWS - readline(Have you checked the NEWS of the
latest development release? (y/n) ) if (no(NEWS))
return(go(https://svn.r-project.org/R/trunk/NEWS;))
rsitesearch - readline(Have you looked on RSiteSearch?
(y/n) ) if (no(rsitesearch)) { cat(Please do this
first - the site has been loaded in your web browser\n)
return(RSiteSearch(subject)) } inf - sessionInfo() if
(otherPkgs %in% names(inf)){ other - readline(You
have packages other than the base packages loaded.,
\nIf your query relates to one of these, have you ,
checked any corresponding books/manuals \nand ,
considered contacting the package maintainer? (y/n/NA)
) if(no(other)) return(Please do this first.) }
man - url(http://cran.r-project.org/manuals.html;) ver
- scan(man, what = character(0), sep = \n, skip = 13,
nlines = 1, quiet = TRUE) major -
as.numeric(substr(ver, start = 18, stop = 18)) minor -
as.numeric(substr(ver, start = 20, stop = 22)) if (major
as.numeric(R.Version()$major) || minor
as.numeric(R.Version()$major)) { update -
readline(Your R version is out-of-date, would you like
to update now? (y/n) ) if (yes(update)) {
return(go(getOption(repos))) } }
Re: [Rd] Posting Guide
Gabor, I agree. Furthermore I think it might be useful to add that in my experience (and I'm sure others as well) that the process of creating a simple reproduceable example for an email to r-help will in most cases clarify what I'm trying to do and actually solve my own problem for me - once or twice I've been tempted to email my problem and my own solution for the archive. As a side note I tend to put a fair bit of work (i.e. measured in days of calendar time and hours of work) for fear of being abused on the list for not doing enough prep work. Fear is probably not the idea motivator though... Regards, Sean 2008/6/6 Gabor Grothendieck [EMAIL PROTECTED]: People read the posting guide yet they are still unable to create an acceptable post. e.g. https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-help/2008-June/164092.html I think the problem is that the guide is not clear or concise enough. I suggest we add a summary at the beginning which gets to the heart of what a poster is expected to provide: Summary To maximize your change of getting a response when posting provide (1) commented, (2) minimal, (3) self-contained and (4) reproducible code. (This one line summary also appears at the end of each message to r-help.) Self-contained and reproducible mean that a responder can copy the questioner's code to the clipboard, paste it into their R session and see the same problem you as the questioner see. Note that dput(mydata) will display mydata in a reproducible way. Self-contained and reproducible are needed because: (1) Self-Effort. It shows that the questioner tried to solve the problem by themself first. (2) Test framework. Often the responder needs to play with the code a bit in order to respond or at least to give the best answer. They can't do that without a test framework that includes the data and the code to run it and its not fair to ask them to not only answer the question but also to come up with test data and to complete incomplete code. (3) Archives. Questions and answers go into the archives so they are not only for the benefit of of the questioner but also for the benefit of all future searchers of the archive. That means that its not finished if you have solved the problem for yourself. You still need to ensure that the thread has a complete solution. (For that reason its also important to give a meaningful subject to each post.) Commented and minimal also reduce the time it takes to understand the problem. Don't just dump your code as is into the message since you are just wasting your own time. Its not likely anyone will answer a message if the questioner has not taken the time to reduce it to its essential elements. Surprisingly, quite often understanding what the problem is takes the responder most of the time -- not solving the problem. Once the question is actually understood its often quite fast to answer. Thus in addition to posting it in a minimal form, comment on it sufficiently so that the responder knows what the code does and is intended to produce. It may be obvious to the questioner who is embroiled in the problem but that does not mean its obvious to others. Introduction rest of posting guide ... __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Re: [Rd] Posting Guide
Here is a second version of the summary. Its been rearranged to place most important info at top. Also shortened it a bit. It still needs links to example posts, as suggested. Anyone? Summary Surprisingly, the main problem for responders is not to answer the posted questions but to quickly figure out what the question is, reproduce it in their own R session and test their answer. Test Framework. To faciliate that provide a test framework of: (1) reproducible self-contained minimal code and data. That means responders can copy it from the questioner's post and paste it into their session to see the same output without having to enter even one R command. NB. dput(mydata) produces mydata in reproducible form. (2) comments/explanations of what the code is intended to produce and (3) versions of all software used, e.g. sessionInfo(). Without self-contained reproducible code the responder must not only understand the question but must also create a test framework and that typically takes more time than answering the question! Its not fair to ask the responder to provide all that on top of answering the question. Do NOT assume the problem is so simple that it is not necessary. Effort. The effort taken to reduce the problem to its essentials and produce a test framework often solves the problem avoiding the need for a post in the first place. It at the least shows that the questioner tried to solve it themself. Subscribers. The questioner should ensure that the thread is complete and that it has an appropriate Subject. The purpose of the post is not only to help the questioner but also the other list subscribers and those later searching the archives. On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 1:30 PM, Gabor Grothendieck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: People read the posting guide yet they are still unable to create an acceptable post. e.g. https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-help/2008-June/164092.html I think the problem is that the guide is not clear or concise enough. I suggest we add a summary at the beginning which gets to the heart of what a poster is expected to provide: Summary To maximize your change of getting a response when posting provide (1) commented, (2) minimal, (3) self-contained and (4) reproducible code. (This one line summary also appears at the end of each message to r-help.) Self-contained and reproducible mean that a responder can copy the questioner's code to the clipboard, paste it into their R session and see the same problem you as the questioner see. Note that dput(mydata) will display mydata in a reproducible way. Self-contained and reproducible are needed because: (1) Self-Effort. It shows that the questioner tried to solve the problem by themself first. (2) Test framework. Often the responder needs to play with the code a bit in order to respond or at least to give the best answer. They can't do that without a test framework that includes the data and the code to run it and its not fair to ask them to not only answer the question but also to come up with test data and to complete incomplete code. (3) Archives. Questions and answers go into the archives so they are not only for the benefit of of the questioner but also for the benefit of all future searchers of the archive. That means that its not finished if you have solved the problem for yourself. You still need to ensure that the thread has a complete solution. (For that reason its also important to give a meaningful subject to each post.) Commented and minimal also reduce the time it takes to understand the problem. Don't just dump your code as is into the message since you are just wasting your own time. Its not likely anyone will answer a message if the questioner has not taken the time to reduce it to its essential elements. Surprisingly, quite often understanding what the problem is takes the responder most of the time -- not solving the problem. Once the question is actually understood its often quite fast to answer. Thus in addition to posting it in a minimal form, comment on it sufficiently so that the responder knows what the code does and is intended to produce. It may be obvious to the questioner who is embroiled in the problem but that does not mean its obvious to others. Introduction rest of posting guide ... __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Re: [Rd] Posting Guide
Here's my attempt at making a little more friendly: Removed self-contained - implied by reproducible Used slightly less formal language (and you instead of the questioner) Fixed a couple of spelling mistakes Removed references to testing framework - I don't think that that term needs to be introduced --- For most questions, the main problem isn't answering the question, but understanding exactly what the question is, reproducing the problem and checking the answer. To make easy for others to help you, you should provide: (1) reproducible, minimal code, and the data needed to run it. That means others can copy and paste from your email and see the same output that you did. An easy way to include data in an email is to include the output of dput(mydata) (2) comments/explanations of what the code is supposed to do, and (3) the version of R and the packages that you used, easily produced by sessionInfo(). Without reproducible code, others have to spend a lot of time recreating the problem so that they can provide an answer that works. Do NOT assume the problem is so simple that it is not necessary. This can seem like a lot of work, but it often pays off by revealing the solution without having to ask anyone else. Even if it doesn't, your effort shows the list that you have tried to solve it yourself. It's also worthwhile spending some time writing a good subject line that succinctly summarises your problem. This also helps others trying to solve the same problem in the future as they can more easily locate relevant messages. Hadley On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 8:38 AM, Gabor Grothendieck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Here is a second version of the summary. Its been rearranged to place most important info at top. Also shortened it a bit. It still needs links to example posts, as suggested. Anyone? Summary Surprisingly, the main problem for responders is not to answer the posted questions but to quickly figure out what the question is, reproduce it in their own R session and test their answer. Test Framework. To faciliate that provide a test framework of: (1) reproducible self-contained minimal code and data. That means responders can copy it from the questioner's post and paste it into their session to see the same output without having to enter even one R command. NB. dput(mydata) produces mydata in reproducible form. (2) comments/explanations of what the code is intended to produce and (3) versions of all software used, e.g. sessionInfo(). Without self-contained reproducible code the responder must not only understand the question but must also create a test framework and that typically takes more time than answering the question! Its not fair to ask the responder to provide all that on top of answering the question. Do NOT assume the problem is so simple that it is not necessary. Effort. The effort taken to reduce the problem to its essentials and produce a test framework often solves the problem avoiding the need for a post in the first place. It at the least shows that the questioner tried to solve it themself. Subscribers. The questioner should ensure that the thread is complete and that it has an appropriate Subject. The purpose of the post is not only to help the questioner but also the other list subscribers and those later searching the archives. On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 1:30 PM, Gabor Grothendieck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: People read the posting guide yet they are still unable to create an acceptable post. e.g. https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-help/2008-June/164092.html I think the problem is that the guide is not clear or concise enough. I suggest we add a summary at the beginning which gets to the heart of what a poster is expected to provide: Summary To maximize your change of getting a response when posting provide (1) commented, (2) minimal, (3) self-contained and (4) reproducible code. (This one line summary also appears at the end of each message to r-help.) Self-contained and reproducible mean that a responder can copy the questioner's code to the clipboard, paste it into their R session and see the same problem you as the questioner see. Note that dput(mydata) will display mydata in a reproducible way. Self-contained and reproducible are needed because: (1) Self-Effort. It shows that the questioner tried to solve the problem by themself first. (2) Test framework. Often the responder needs to play with the code a bit in order to respond or at least to give the best answer. They can't do that without a test framework that includes the data and the code to run it and its not fair to ask them to not only answer the question but also to come up with test data and to complete incomplete code. (3) Archives. Questions and answers go into the archives so they are not only for the benefit of of the questioner but also for the benefit of all future searchers of
Re: [Rd] Posting Guide
Might I suggest the following two additions: For item (1), I suggest adding to the end of it something like Consider attaching this output/data as a txt file if it is too large, or consider using one of the built in data sets (as produced e.g. by data() ) if they suffice to illustrate the problem. I find it rather distracting to have to wade through pages and pages of the the output of dput before I can read the questions to be answered, and perhaps they are the kinds of questions that indeed can be answered without that output, in which case having it pasted straight into the text can be quite distracting. Unless we can at least convince them to append the output to the end, instead of the core of the message. With regards to sessionInfo, I would consider it equally important, many times, to have the output of ls(), to make sure that functions etc are not masked by user defined global variables. But perhaps I'm alone in that? At least mention clearly that the code provided should be reproducible on a clean R workspace, or something like that? I think creating this summary section to the posting guide is a great idea. The posting guide, though chock full with useful information on how to do a proper post, ends up having just way too much information, resulting, as experienced, in people not following it. Haris Skiadas Department of Mathematics and Computer Science Hanover College On Jun 7, 2008, at 10:48 AM, hadley wickham wrote: Here's my attempt at making a little more friendly: Removed self-contained - implied by reproducible Used slightly less formal language (and you instead of the questioner) Fixed a couple of spelling mistakes Removed references to testing framework - I don't think that that term needs to be introduced --- For most questions, the main problem isn't answering the question, but understanding exactly what the question is, reproducing the problem and checking the answer. To make easy for others to help you, you should provide: (1) reproducible, minimal code, and the data needed to run it. That means others can copy and paste from your email and see the same output that you did. An easy way to include data in an email is to include the output of dput(mydata) (2) comments/explanations of what the code is supposed to do, and (3) the version of R and the packages that you used, easily produced by sessionInfo(). Without reproducible code, others have to spend a lot of time recreating the problem so that they can provide an answer that works. Do NOT assume the problem is so simple that it is not necessary. This can seem like a lot of work, but it often pays off by revealing the solution without having to ask anyone else. Even if it doesn't, your effort shows the list that you have tried to solve it yourself. It's also worthwhile spending some time writing a good subject line that succinctly summarises your problem. This also helps others trying to solve the same problem in the future as they can more easily locate relevant messages. Hadley On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 8:38 AM, Gabor Grothendieck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Here is a second version of the summary. Its been rearranged to place most important info at top. Also shortened it a bit. It still needs links to example posts, as suggested. Anyone? Summary Surprisingly, the main problem for responders is not to answer the posted questions but to quickly figure out what the question is, reproduce it in their own R session and test their answer. Test Framework. To faciliate that provide a test framework of: (1) reproducible self-contained minimal code and data. That means responders can copy it from the questioner's post and paste it into their session to see the same output without having to enter even one R command. NB. dput(mydata) produces mydata in reproducible form. (2) comments/explanations of what the code is intended to produce and (3) versions of all software used, e.g. sessionInfo(). Without self-contained reproducible code the responder must not only understand the question but must also create a test framework and that typically takes more time than answering the question! Its not fair to ask the responder to provide all that on top of answering the question. Do NOT assume the problem is so simple that it is not necessary. Effort. The effort taken to reduce the problem to its essentials and produce a test framework often solves the problem avoiding the need for a post in the first place. It at the least shows that the questioner tried to solve it themself. Subscribers. The questioner should ensure that the thread is complete and that it has an appropriate Subject. The purpose of the post is not only to help the questioner but also the other list subscribers and those later searching the archives. On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 1:30 PM, Gabor Grothendieck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Re: [Rd] Posting Guide
Here is another update. I have added the following: - info about using a fresh R session. (In that case ls() output is less essential; however, the developers of sessionInfo() might consider adding that as a default or as an option.) - questioner should consider use of functions. - for data use dump(x, file = ) to reproducibly display data or use builtin datasets listed by data() - minimal versions of slow code should be presented in cases where questioner is looking for faster code. - we still need to add links to illustrative sample questions in r-help The following were not added for the reason cited: - guide is not just for questioners. Important to distinguish roles of questioner, responder and reader. - what is to be provided ought to be given a name to make it easier to refer to. An unlabelled set of points is too vague. Test framework seems appropriately descriptive. By giving it a name one can request that a questioner provide a test framework as defined in the posting guide summary. - self contained is not implied by reproducible. Reproducible only means that info is available somewhere -- not that its all available right in the questioner's post and all in a manner that is readily accessible. - focus should be on making data minimal. Don't like attachments since responder must save them and read them in. It encourages use of large rather than minimal data sets. Summary Surprisingly, the main problem for responders is not to answer the question but to quickly figure out what the question is, reproduce it in their own R session and test their answer. Test Framework. To faciliate this provide a test framework of: (1) minimal reproducible self-contained commented code and data that has been run in a fresh R session. That means code and data have been cut down as far as possible to the essentials needed to illustrate the problem and were run are just after starting up R. Also it means that its possible for responders to just copy the code and data section from the questioner's post to the clipboard and paste it into their session to see the same output without having to enter even one R command. In some cases there may be an advantage to present the code as a function and in the case of needing a speedup be sure to post a minimal version of the slow code. Use builtin data sets such as those listed by data() to illustrate problem or reduce your data to a minimum and present it reproducibly by using: dump(mydata, file = ) (2) comments/explanation of what the code is intended to produce -- Don't assume its obvious! (3) versions of all software used, e.g. sessionInfo(), or R.version.string; packageDescription(zoo)$Version Without self-contained reproducible code the responder must not only understand the question but must also create a test framework and that typically takes more time than answering the question! Its not fair to ask the responder to provide all that on top of answering the question. Do NOT assume the problem is so simple that it is not necessary. Effort. The effort taken to reduce the problem to its essentials and produce a test framework often solves the problem avoiding the need for a post in the first place. It at the least shows that the questioner tried to solve it themself. Subscribers. The questioner should ensure that the thread is complete and that it has an appropriate Subject. The purpose of the post is not only to help the questioner but also the other list subscribers and those later searching the archives. On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 9:38 AM, Gabor Grothendieck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Here is a second version of the summary. Its been rearranged to place most important info at top. Also shortened it a bit. It still needs links to example posts, as suggested. Anyone? Summary Surprisingly, the main problem for responders is not to answer the posted questions but to quickly figure out what the question is, reproduce it in their own R session and test their answer. Test Framework. To faciliate that provide a test framework of: (1) reproducible self-contained minimal code and data. That means responders can copy it from the questioner's post and paste it into their session to see the same output without having to enter even one R command. NB. dput(mydata) produces mydata in reproducible form. (2) comments/explanations of what the code is intended to produce and (3) versions of all software used, e.g. sessionInfo(). Without self-contained reproducible code the responder must not only understand the question but must also create a test framework and that typically takes more time than answering the question! Its not fair to ask the responder to provide all that on top of answering the question. Do NOT assume the problem is so simple that it is not
Re: [Rd] Posting Guide
I'd recommend either having two or three good examples of acceptable posts at the end of the posting guide or at least some hyperlinks to good examples. Two or three contrasting poor posts would also be helpful. If people can see a brief email with working code AND the ever-essential sessionInfo() output I think they will be more likely to compose a reasonable post. It's not rocket science when you see a few examples of good posts, but reading lines and lines of text describing a good post clearly is not getting through to many people. Steve McKinney -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Gabor Grothendieck Sent: Fri 6/6/2008 10:30 AM To: R Development List Subject: [Rd] Posting Guide People read the posting guide yet they are still unable to create an acceptable post. e.g. https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-help/2008-June/164092.html I think the problem is that the guide is not clear or concise enough. I suggest we add a summary at the beginning which gets to the heart of what a poster is expected to provide: Summary To maximize your change of getting a response when posting provide (1) commented, (2) minimal, (3) self-contained and (4) reproducible code. (This one line summary also appears at the end of each message to r-help.) Self-contained and reproducible mean that a responder can copy the questioner's code to the clipboard, paste it into their R session and see the same problem you as the questioner see. Note that dput(mydata) will display mydata in a reproducible way. Self-contained and reproducible are needed because: (1) Self-Effort. It shows that the questioner tried to solve the problem by themself first. (2) Test framework. Often the responder needs to play with the code a bit in order to respond or at least to give the best answer. They can't do that without a test framework that includes the data and the code to run it and its not fair to ask them to not only answer the question but also to come up with test data and to complete incomplete code. (3) Archives. Questions and answers go into the archives so they are not only for the benefit of of the questioner but also for the benefit of all future searchers of the archive. That means that its not finished if you have solved the problem for yourself. You still need to ensure that the thread has a complete solution. (For that reason its also important to give a meaningful subject to each post.) Commented and minimal also reduce the time it takes to understand the problem. Don't just dump your code as is into the message since you are just wasting your own time. Its not likely anyone will answer a message if the questioner has not taken the time to reduce it to its essential elements. Surprisingly, quite often understanding what the problem is takes the responder most of the time -- not solving the problem. Once the question is actually understood its often quite fast to answer. Thus in addition to posting it in a minimal form, comment on it sufficiently so that the responder knows what the code does and is intended to produce. It may be obvious to the questioner who is embroiled in the problem but that does not mean its obvious to others. Introduction rest of posting guide ... __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
