You're right: it's ?par that could use fixing (wrt to definitions of
"cex"-related arguments).
This is also a good example of why making even small changes to
documentation is fraught with difficulty. I suspect that such discussions
could be had about many "minor improvements".
-- Tony Plate
Tony Plate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> (1) Change "expansion factor" to "character scaling factor" or
> "character magnification" in the descriptions of 'cex.axis' and
> 'cex.names'
Now that's a really bad idea in my book... The "ex" in "cex" is
*ex*actly for *ex*pansion, also note the consiste
Tony Plate wrote:
[...]
Can anyone point to some guidelines that people who wish to improve R
documentation might find useful?
There is a little bit in S Poetry starting on page 34.
Patrick Burns
Burns Statistics
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
+44 (0)20 8525 0696
http://www.burns-stat.com
(home of S Poetry
Patrick Burns' and Brian Ripley's general comments about the difficulty of
writing good documentation are on the mark, but the specific case of the
man page for "barplot" does seem amenable to at least some slight
improvements, e.g.:
(1) Change "expansion factor" to "character scaling factor" o
Here is a change I made to the matrix.Rd file...
< \code{list} of length 2 giving the row and column names
respectivly.}
---
> \code{list} of length 2.}
65,75d64
<
< # Example of setting row and column names
< data <- matrix(c(16522,34057,40949,
< 19924,46032,55185),
<
> From: Tony Plate
>
> At Tuesday 10:00 AM 11/2/2004, Dan Bolser wrote:
>
> >Would you mind telling me how to get at the documentation
> source code?
>
> Download and unpack the source, then look for the appropriate .Rd
> file. For example, in my copy of the source for R-1.9.1
> (old, don't
Hey,
Thanks very much for this information.
On Tue, 2 Nov 2004, Patrick Burns wrote:
>
>Dan Bolser wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 2 Nov 2004, Tony Plate wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Yup, I think you're right. R is a volunteer project, so what needs to
>>>happen to improve the documentation is that some capable
Dan Bolser wrote:
On Tue, 2 Nov 2004, Tony Plate wrote:
Yup, I think you're right. R is a volunteer project, so what needs to
happen to improve the documentation is that some capable volunteers (or
just one volunteer) step forward. It is the prerogative of the members of
R-core to decide w
On Tue, 2 Nov 2004, Prof Brian Ripley wrote:
>There are books about R: have you tried reading a couple (or more)?
Not from cover to cover.
I turn to use a function, I find a problem using that function, I look at
the online information for that function and I can't understand it ...
somthing is
There are books about R: have you tried reading a couple (or more)?
And what training have you had in technical communication (which includes
honing your reading skills)?
In contrast, I find the Perl documentation very hard to use and
insufficiently precise, and would be surprised if many learner
At Tuesday 10:00 AM 11/2/2004, Dan Bolser wrote:
Would you mind telling me how to get at the documentation source code?
Download and unpack the source, then look for the appropriate .Rd
file. For example, in my copy of the source for R-1.9.1 (old, don't work
with this!), I find C:\R\R-1.9.1\src\
Would you mind telling me how to get at the documentation source code?
Is there a - how to change the documentation document? ( I will make one
if you give me some instructions
I guess I can just edit a copy of the source and diff the original and
send the diff ?
Cheers,
Dan.
On Tue, 2 No
I suspect that part of the reason for having terse documentation is that it
is easier to maintain when changes are made to the code. Now that R is
more stable and mature maybe documentation could get a bit more expansive?
I also suspect that you will have a better chance of getting improvements
On Tue, 2 Nov 2004, Tony Plate wrote:
>Yup, I think you're right. R is a volunteer project, so what needs to
>happen to improve the documentation is that some capable volunteers (or
>just one volunteer) step forward. It is the prerogative of the members of
>R-core to decide whether to spend
Yup, I think you're right. R is a volunteer project, so what needs to
happen to improve the documentation is that some capable volunteers (or
just one volunteer) step forward. It is the prerogative of the members of
R-core to decide whether to spend their time on improving documentation or
i
Should these be in the (see also section)?
Like I said, the pages read fine if you understand the content already. I
think some less formal man pages would drastically reduce the traffic on
the R mailing list.
Just a hunch,
Dan.
On Mon, 1 Nov 2004, Tony Plate wrote:
>Look at the help page for
Look at the help page for "par" for explanations of "cex" and "lty".
The use of 'mp' is as a variable, as in
> mp <- barplot()
The next paragraph refers to this variable.
-- Tony Plate
At Monday 05:12 PM 11/1/2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Full_Name: Dan B
Version: R 2.0.0 (2004-10-04).
OS: Fed
17 matches
Mail list logo
