[R] NA, where no NA should (could!) be!

Wacek Kusnierczyk Waclaw.Marcin.Kusnierczyk at idi.ntnu.no
Sun Dec 21 19:29:20 CET 2008

Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
> I think reproducible is the correct word and its meaning should be clear from
> both its conventional meaning, see link, and the context in which its used:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility
> It is surprising how many posters disregard this basic requirement for a post,
> clearly stated at the bottom of each message to r-help.

well, the foot

> ______________________________________________
> R-help at r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
> PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
> and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.

says 'reproducible code', but code is what you really want to get, not
to reproduce ;)


More information about the R-help mailing list