2017-11-30 3:14 GMT+01:00 Suzen, Mehmet <mehmet.suzen at gmail.com>:> My understanding is that there is no inconsistency. `is` does what it > claims, from the documentation: > > ?is?: With two arguments, tests whether ?object? can be treated as > from ?class2?. > > With one argument, returns all the super-classes of this > object's class.Note that this is not in the documentation since a year ago. I?aki
On 30 November 2017 at 11:37, I?aki ?car <i.ucar86 at gmail.com> wrote:> 2017-11-30 3:14 GMT+01:00 Suzen, Mehmet <mehmet.suzen at gmail.com>: >> My understanding is that there is no inconsistency. `is` does what it >> claims, from the documentation: >> >> ?is?: With two arguments, tests whether ?object? can be treated as >> from ?class2?. >> >> With one argument, returns all the super-classes of this >> object's class. > > Note that this is not in the documentation since a year ago. >As far as I understood and gather, starting from methods v3.3.2, the following new reference is added: * Chambers, John M. (2016) Extending R, Chapman & Hall. (Chapters 9 and 10.) Pushing that details there, I assume. Best, Mehmet
2017-11-30 13:26 GMT+01:00 Suzen, Mehmet <mehmet.suzen at gmail.com>:> On 30 November 2017 at 11:37, I?aki ?car <i.ucar86 at gmail.com> wrote: >> 2017-11-30 3:14 GMT+01:00 Suzen, Mehmet <mehmet.suzen at gmail.com>: >>> My understanding is that there is no inconsistency. `is` does what it >>> claims, from the documentation: >>> >>> ?is?: With two arguments, tests whether ?object? can be treated as >>> from ?class2?. >>> >>> With one argument, returns all the super-classes of this >>> object's class. >> >> Note that this is not in the documentation since a year ago. >> > > As far as I understood and gather, starting from methods v3.3.2, the following > new reference is added: > > * Chambers, John M. (2016) Extending R, Chapman & Hall. (Chapters 9 and 10.) > > Pushing that details there, I assume.Am I supposed to read every reference on a man page just to know what to expect from a function? I?aki