2017-11-30 14:13 GMT+01:00 Suzen, Mehmet <mehmet.suzen at gmail.com>:> On 30 November 2017 at 14:04, I?aki ?car <i.ucar86 at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Am I supposed to read every reference on a man page just to know what >> to expect from a function? >> > > If the reference is from John Chamber, you are supposed to read it.As a joke, it's funny.> It is not always possible for maintainers to document everything on a man page.My only point is that Herv?'s concern is perfectly legitimate given the output of "?is". Whether the inconsistency is in the behaviour of the function or in the documentation, that I don't know. Personally, I think that having two functions (is, extends) with exactly the same output wouldn't be very practical. But it's a fact that the difference is not currently addressed in the man page. I?aki
>>>>> I?aki ?car <i.ucar86 at gmail.com> >>>>> on Thu, 30 Nov 2017 14:32:12 +0100 writes:> 2017-11-30 14:13 GMT+01:00 Suzen, Mehmet <mehmet.suzen at gmail.com>: >> On 30 November 2017 at 14:04, I?aki ?car <i.ucar86 at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Am I supposed to read every reference on a man page just to know what >>> to expect from a function? >>> >> >> If the reference is from John Chamber, you are supposed to read it. (note: it is Chamber*s* ) > As a joke, it's funny. >> It is not always possible for maintainers to document everything on a man page. Correct. But honestly, I'm not even sure if John Chambers' change to the help page last October dropped that description of is() on purpose. In my eyes, the main change to the help page was to deemphasize the use of setIs(), and document that separately (for experts, whereas the doc for is() and extends() is for mere useRs) : -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- r71460 | jmc | 2016-10-06 20:23:19 +0200 (Thu, 06. Oct 2016) | M src/library/methods/man/as.Rd M src/library/methods/man/is.Rd A src/library/methods/man/setAs.Rd A src/library/methods/man/setIs.Rd M src/library/methods/man/setMethod.Rd Further changes to separate user-relevant doc. for is(), as(). Change examples in setMethod() to be acceptable R code .... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > My only point is that Herv?'s concern is perfectly legitimate given > the output of "?is". I'd tend to agree -- but am *not* volunteering to fix it, currently. > Whether the inconsistency is in the behaviour of > the function or in the documentation, that I don't know. Personally, I > think that having two functions (is, extends) with exactly the same > output wouldn't be very practical. They have different "input", (or---better language-- 'argument's) : is(<object>, ..) extends(<class>, ..) I would also tend to agree with Herv? that the binary and unary uses of is() "should be" consistent, as they are for S4, where indeed, is() stems from. > But it's a fact that the difference > is not currently addressed in the man page. correct, too. > I?aki
On 30 Nov 2017 14:32, "I?aki ?car" <i.ucar86 at gmail.com> wrote:>> >> Am I supposed to read every reference on a man page just to know what >> to expect from a function? >> > > If the reference is from John Chamber, you are supposed to read it.As a joke, it's funny. Not a joke. John Chambers is the authority in R object systems. Please do not mock him or resources pointing to his works.> It is not always possible for maintainers to document everything on a manpage. My only point is that Herv?'s concern is perfectly legitimate given the output of "?is". Whether the inconsistency is in the behaviour of the function or in the documentation, that I don't know. Personally, I There is no inconsistency as far as I understood; Data.frame do not have a pure S4 super-class hierachy. [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
2017-11-30 15:54 GMT+01:00 Suzen, Mehmet <mehmet.suzen at gmail.com>:> > > On 30 Nov 2017 14:32, "I?aki ?car" <i.ucar86 at gmail.com> wrote: > >>> >>> Am I supposed to read every reference on a man page just to know what >>> to expect from a function? >>> >> >> If the reference is from John Chamber, you are supposed to read it. > > As a joke, it's funny. > > > > Not a joke. John Chambers is the authority in R object systems. Please do > not mock him or resources pointing to his works.I perfectly know John Chambers' work, thank you, and there was no mockery towards him. If you really believe that references should be needed to know what to expect from a function call, then we work with different definitions of "manual". But judging from the excellent R documentation, I would say that the R maintainers don't share your view. I?aki