Martin Maechler wrote:
>> "JH" == Johannes Huesing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> on Thu, 22 Nov 2007 22:14:57 +0100 writes:
>
> JH> Antony Unwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [Thu, Nov 22,
> JH> 2007 at 12:43:07PM CET]:
> >> There have been several constructive responses to John
> >> Sorkin's comment, but none of them are fully
> >> satisfactory. Of course, if you know the name of the
> >> function you are looking for, there are lots of ways to
> >> search ? provided that everyone calls the function by a
> >> name that matches your search.
>
> JH> I follow the suggestion to Google (mostly restricted by
> JH> site:cran.r-project.org) which gets me quite far.
>
> >> If you think there might be a function, but you don't
> >> know the name, then you have to be lucky in how you
> >> search. R is a language and the suggestions so far seem
> >> to me like dictionary suggestions, whereas maybe what
> >> John is looking for is something more like a thesarus.
>
> JH> This is hard to do in a collaborative effort. One
> JH> analogue is the HOWTOs vs the man pages which I see in
> JH> Linux. Some of the HOWTOs are outstanding, the only
> JH> problem they are facing is that they tend to be out of
> JH> date.
>
> >>
> >> R packages are a strange collection, as befits a growing
> >> language. There are large packages, small packages, good
> >> packages (and not so good packages), personal mixtures of
> >> tools in packages, packages to accompany books,
> >> superceded packages, unusual packages, everything. Above
> >> all there are lots of packages. As the software editor
> >> of the Journal of Statistical Software I suggested we
> >> should review R packages.
>
> JH> You mean: prior to submission?
>
> >> No one has shown any enthusiasm for this suggestion, but
> >> I think it would help. Any volunteers?
>
> JH> I am still putting some hope into the R Wiki. To my
> JH> dismay it is also package oriented,
> JH> not method-oriented.
>
> I don't think this is true; at least it's not at all intended.
> I'll *exceptionally* am crossposting this to the R-Wiki Special
> Interest Group.
The R-SIG-Wiki is there to discuss problems related to the Wiki. The
Wiki itself, not the SIG, is the place where the information should go.
Indeed, the R Wiki goal is NOT to help finding which package to use (at
least, not directly), but it's primary goal is to collect together
additional documentation around R and R packages contributed by the
users. So, the question about how to efficiently find the right function
and documentation is still open (CRAN Task Views associated with
Googling R stuff is probably the way to go here).
Although I am sure it is difficult to do, I also think that a review
mechanism for packages would be nice. Another interesting approach is
the test unit. It is already implemented, but should be used more
intensively. The question is: could we maintain (and grow) a database of
use cases, with examples datasets and typical results expected that we
can use to test functions in R packages more intensively?
Best,
Philippe
> JH> I tend to think that there is a chance
> JH> of controlled documentation if somebody set out an
> JH> infrastructure going beyond the current one. Anything
> JH> like a classification of methods.
>
> JH> Thing is, I may like to volunteer, but not in the
> JH> "here's a package for you to review by week 32"
> JH> way. Rather in the way that I search a package which
> JH> fits my problem. One package lets me down and I'd like
> JH> to know other users and the maintainer about it. The
> JH> other one works black magic and I'd like to drop a
> JH> raving review about it. This needs an infrastructure
> JH> with a low barrier to entry. A wiki is not the worst
> JH> idea if the initial infrastructure is geared at
> JH> addressing problems rather than packages.
>
> JH> -- Johannes H�sing
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> R-sig-wiki mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-wiki
___
R-sig-wiki mailing list
[email protected]
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-wiki
