Re: [R] Documentation: Was -- identical() versus sapply()

If you generate the list of pages you're comfortable editing, the posse of folk who have already come forward can select one that we think can be improved and see how we get along with it. Sarah has already noted that Github offers wiki documentation. It is likely imperfect, but we can (and

Re: [R] Documentation: Was -- identical() versus sapply()

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 9:44 AM, David Winsemius wrote: > > There need to be more worked examples, but those could easily be mined from > problems submitted as recorded in the R-help Archives and StackOverFlow. > This sounds like a great opportunity for R-users to

Re: [R] Documentation: Was -- identical() versus sapply()

On 12/04/2016 11:30 AM, ProfJCNash wrote: Thanks Duncan, for the offer to experiment. Can you suggest a couple of your pages that you think might need improvement? We might as well start with something you'd like looked at. I don't think I can. I don't intentionally write obscure

Re: [R] Documentation: Was -- identical() versus sapply()

On 12/04/2016 12:44 PM, David Winsemius wrote: > On Apr 12, 2016, at 8:31 AM, Sarah Goslee wrote: > > I am very interested in such a distributed documentation editing > project, and have some thoughts on how to make it workable for both > volunteers and core members who

Re: [R] Documentation: Was -- identical() versus sapply()

> On Apr 12, 2016, at 8:31 AM, Sarah Goslee wrote: > > I am very interested in such a distributed documentation editing > project, and have some thoughts on how to make it workable for both > volunteers and core members who would need to review. > > I'm willing to lead

Re: [R] Documentation: Was -- identical() versus sapply()

I am very interested in such a distributed documentation editing project, and have some thoughts on how to make it workable for both volunteers and core members who would need to review. I'm willing to lead or colead such a project, if someone stepping up would be a useful first step, and I'm

Re: [R] Documentation: Was -- identical() versus sapply()

Thanks Duncan, for the offer to experiment. Can you suggest a couple of your pages that you think might need improvement? We might as well start with something you'd like looked at. Then I'll ask if there are interested people and see what can be done about getting a framework set up to work on

Re: [R] Documentation: Was -- identical() versus sapply()

FWIW: 1. I agree that this is an idea worth considering. Especially now that R has become so widely used among practitioners who are neither especially software literate nor interested in poring over R manuals (as I did when I first learned R). They have explicit tasks to do and just want to get

Re: [R] Documentation: Was -- identical() versus sapply()

On 12/04/2016 9:21 AM, ProfJCNash wrote: "The documentation aims to be accurate, not necessarily clear." > I notice that none of the critics > in this thread have offered improvements on what is there. This issue is as old as documented things. With software it is particularly nasty,

[R] Documentation: Was -- identical() versus sapply()

"The documentation aims to be accurate, not necessarily clear." > I notice that none of the critics > in this thread have offered improvements on what is there. This issue is as old as documented things. With software it is particularly nasty, especially when we want the software to