Re: [Rd] [R] Semantics of sequences in R

From: Berwin A Turlach <berwin_at_maths.uwa.edu.au>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 17:52:15 +0800

On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 09:39:51 +0100
Wacek Kusnierczyk <Waclaw.Marcin.Kusnierczyk_at_idi.ntnu.no> wrote:

> Berwin A Turlach wrote:

[...]
> why not read some fortunes?
I am well aware of those fortunes and maybe you missed the one:

> fortune("Watson")

Getting flamed for asking dumb questions on a public mailing list is all part of growing up and being a man/woman.

I am actually wondering where the corresponding fortunes from December 2005, December 2006, December 2007 and December 2009 are since they started of be produced on an annual basis.

[...]
> >> on the other hand, i have seen quite a few responses that were
> >> bashing a user for reporting a non-existent bug or submitting an
> >> annoying patch.
> >>
> >
> > In didactic terms those are "negative motivations/reinforcements";
> > opinion differ on how effective they are to reach certain learning
> > outcomes.
> >
>
> ah, so what's the difference between the way i pinpoint design flaws
> and the way r gurus respond to people, so that i am running with a
> chip on my shoulder, and they are being 'negatively
> motivating/reinforcing' in didactic terms? [...]

Your goal is, presumably, that you want to have the design flaws fixed/discussed/&c. The goal of the R gurus is to avoid having to waste their time on unproductive issues because people do not read documentation/behave contrary to how they are asked to behave/&c.

To reach your goal, the controversial approach is counter productive. To reach their goal, the controversial approach can be quite effective.

[...]
> >> it has been fixed immediately by martin.
> >>
> >
> > Yes, and, again, you could not help yourself telling the developers
> > what you think they should do, could you?
>
> was this really running with a chip:

Look up what "running with a chip on your shoulder means" and reflect on the occasions in which I suggested to you that you give the impression of doing so. On this occasion nobody said that you were running around with a chip on your shoulder.

> "shouldn't the tests have captured it? i think you should have a check
> for every feature following from the docs."
>
> to which marting responded "yes, we should"

But he also made it clear that it would be unlikely that he or any other R-core member would write those tests and that this would probably be left to you; with any contribution being welcome. Consider yourself lucky that this exchange was with Martin, other members of R core might have communicated a similar message in quite another way. That exchange is very much confirming my understanding of the culture of the R community.

> > As I try to tell you, that
> > is not the way it works. R comes already with extensive tests that
> > are run with "make check". If you think some are missing, you
> > could send a script and propose that they are included. But
> > telling others that they should write such tests is unlikely to
> > make it happen.
>
> haven't done the thing.

Come on, read your own quote above: "Shouldn't the tests have captured this? I think you should have a check for every feature following from the docs", If this is not "telling others that they should write such test", then what is?

Cheers,

        Berwin



R-devel_at_r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel Received on Tue 24 Feb 2009 - 08:57:42 GMT

Archive maintained by Robert King, hosted by the discipline of statistics at the University of Newcastle, Australia.
Archive generated by hypermail 2.2.0, at Wed 25 Feb 2009 - 09:30:44 GMT.

Mailing list information is available at https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel. Please read the posting guide before posting to the list.

list of date sections of archive