[Rd] binary form of is() contradicts its unary form
i.ucar86 at gmail.com
Thu Nov 30 14:04:37 CET 2017
2017-11-30 13:26 GMT+01:00 Suzen, Mehmet <mehmet.suzen at gmail.com>:
> On 30 November 2017 at 11:37, Iñaki Úcar <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?
More information about the R-devel