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

From: Berwin A Turlach <>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 17:52:15 +0800

On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 09:39:51 +0100
Wacek Kusnierczyk <> 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?


        Berwin mailing list 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 Please read the posting guide before posting to the list.

list of date sections of archive