Re: Possible bug in R 2.6.1 (PR#10565)

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
4 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Possible bug in R 2.6.1 (PR#10565)

Prof Brian Ripley
On Fri, 11 Jan 2008, [hidden email] wrote:

> Colleagues,
>
> =20
>
> In using the paste command I have to spell out the collapse option:
>
> =20
>
>> paste(1:3,coll=3D"a")
>
> [1] "1 a" "2 a" "3 a"
>
>> paste(1:3,collapse=3D"a")
>
> [1] "1a2a3"
>
> =20
>
> My understanding is that the abbreviation coll should be adequate.
> Actually, even collaps isn't enough:

Your understanding is wrong.  The help page says

Usage:

      paste(..., sep = " ", collapse = NULL)

Argument names after ... cannot be abbreviated ('S Programming' p.40,
amongst other places).

I do often wonder why people are 'sure you know for certain' (to quote the
FAQ) that something as elementary as this would be a bug for so many
years. It indicates a lack of respect for the R developers.


>
> =20
>
> paste(1:3,collaps=3D"a")
>
> [1] "1 a" "2 a" "3 a"
>
> =20
>
> LG
>
> =20
>
> Lionel Galway, Ph.D.
>
> Senior Statistician
>
> The RAND Corporation     voice: (+1) 310-393-0411 x7957
>
> 1776 Main St.                  fax:    (+1) 310-393-4818
>
> Santa Monica, CA 90407 USA
>
> email:  [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>=20

--
Brian D. Ripley,                  [hidden email]
Professor of Applied Statistics,  http://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/~ripley/
University of Oxford,             Tel:  +44 1865 272861 (self)
1 South Parks Road,                     +44 1865 272866 (PA)
Oxford OX1 3TG, UK                Fax:  +44 1865 272595

______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Possible bug in R 2.6.1 (PR#10565)

François Pinard
[Brian Ripley]

>I do often wonder why people are 'sure you know for certain' (to quote the
>FAQ) that something as elementary as this would be a bug for so many
>years.  It indicates a lack of respect for the R developers.

Not at all.  A bug report may be naive, or even wrong, and still be
driven by good will, and be rightly interpreted as an attempt at
a contribution to both the R community and R developers.

The lack of respect only exists in the head of susceptible developers.
Some of them are nevertheless admirable for their expertise, commitment
and contributions.  The truth is that, deep down, _nobody_ is perfect.  
Tolerance and kindness usually are more fruitful attitudes, not only on
the R lists, but everywhere.

--
François Pinard   http://pinard.progiciels-bpi.ca

______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Possible bug in R 2.6.1 (PR#10565)

Thomas Lumley
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008, [iso-8859-1] François Pinard wrote:

> [Brian Ripley]
>
>> I do often wonder why people are 'sure you know for certain' (to quote the
>> FAQ) that something as elementary as this would be a bug for so many
>> years.  It indicates a lack of respect for the R developers.
>
> Not at all.  A bug report may be naive, or even wrong, and still be
> driven by good will, and be rightly interpreted as an attempt at
> a contribution to both the R community and R developers.
>

Brian's point is that there is an *explicit* request (in both the posting guide and the FAQ) not to send things to R-bugs unless you are *sure* they are bugs.  Queries about *possible* bugs are welcome on r-devel or r-help as appropriate.

Someone who sends a query about a possible bug to r-bugs has either not read the posting guide or has chosen to ignore the request. It is possible that the request in the posting guide is not sufficiently clear and they just misunderstand it, but I haven't seen anyone claim this. If that's what you mean, then suggestions for making it clearer would be considered.

If someone presents code  on r-help or r-devel that produces behaviour they don't understand and asks if it is bug (rather than asserting that it must be a bug) they have a much higher chance of receiving a friendly reply [and an even higher chance of receiving a helpful reply]


    -thomas

Thomas Lumley Assoc. Professor, Biostatistics
[hidden email] University of Washington, Seattle

______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Possible bug in R 2.6.1 (PR#10565)

Latchezar (Lucho) Dimitrov
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email]
> [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Thomas Lumley
> Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 11:24 AM
> To: François Pinard
> Cc: [hidden email]; [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [Rd] Possible bug in R 2.6.1 (PR#10565)
>
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2008, [iso-8859-1] François Pinard wrote:
>
> > [Brian Ripley]
> >
> >> I do often wonder why people are 'sure you know for certain' (to
> >> quote the
> >> FAQ) that something as elementary as this would be a bug
> for so many
> >> years.  It indicates a lack of respect for the R developers.
> >
> > Not at all.  A bug report may be naive, or even wrong, and still be
> > driven by good will, and be rightly interpreted as an attempt at a
> > contribution to both the R community and R developers.
> >
>
> Brian's point is

  ... and François Pinard's is that you should (sic) be more tolerant and forgiving to _your_ users.

BTW, my standing ovations to François Pinard excellent language and wordings. I wish I could do it as well :-(


Thanks for understanding,

Latchezar Dimitrov


> that there is an *explicit* request (in both
> the posting guide and the FAQ) not to send things to R-bugs
> unless you are *sure* they are bugs.  Queries about
> *possible* bugs are welcome on r-devel or r-help as appropriate.
>
> Someone who sends a query about a possible bug to r-bugs has
> either not read the posting guide or has chosen to ignore the
> request. It is possible that the request in the posting guide
> is not sufficiently clear and they just misunderstand it, but
> I haven't seen anyone claim this. If that's what you mean,
> then suggestions for making it clearer would be considered.
>
> If someone presents code  on r-help or r-devel that produces
> behaviour they don't understand and asks if it is bug (rather
> than asserting that it must be a bug) they have a much higher
> chance of receiving a friendly reply [and an even higher
> chance of receiving a helpful reply]
>
>
>     -thomas
>
> Thomas Lumley Assoc. Professor, Biostatistics
> [hidden email] University of Washington, Seattle
>
> ______________________________________________
> [hidden email] mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>

______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel