[Rd] Unnecessary apostrophe in English base::summary() NA count output?

[Ben Bolker]

There seem to be a variety of opinions about style in this case; do
you omit the apostrophe ("NAs") because it's not a possessive or a
contraction, or do you include the apostrophe ("NA's") to clearly
distinguish the acronym from the plural form?

 I personally prefer "NAs" to "NA's" but both are defensible.

https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/55970/plurals-of-acronyms-letters-numbers-use-an-apostrophe-or-not
https://brians.wsu.edu/2016/05/16/acronyms-and-apostrophes/ ("many
people object to it")

On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 10:20 AM Hernando Cortina <hcortina71 using gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  Hello, this is quite a minor issue but as summary() is in all likelihood
> one of the most widely used functions in R I decided to email this list.
> When producing a count of missing values, summary() in English generates an
> unnecessary and grammatically incorrect apostrophe (NA's rather than NAs)
> in its table header.  For example:
>
> > summary(c(1,2,NA,3,4,NA))
>    Min. 1st Qu.  Median    Mean 3rd Qu.    Max.    NA's
>    1.00    1.75    2.50    2.50    3.25    4.00       2
>
> The issue can be traced to this file:
> https://svn.r-project.org/R/trunk/src/library/base/R/summary.R
> Unless this is being done intentionally for some reason, the solution would
> seem to be to replace the string "NA's" with "NAs".  There are 9
> occurrences in the file.
>
> Thank you very much.
>
>         [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
>
> ______________________________________________
> R-devel using r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel