[R] [FORGED] Re: pair correlation function of 3D points

Eric Leroy |eroy @end|ng |rom |cmpe@cnr@@|r
Wed Apr 29 14:28:55 CEST 2020

Dear all,
I am sorry to see all the reactions I provoked from a newbie user. Anyway, thank you for the answer I think that the pcf3est function responds to my question. 
Indeed the spatstat is a very impressive library and I am very grateful to the the developers. 
Best regards 

Responsable de la plateforme microscopie électronique 
ICMPE - UMR 7182 
2/8, rue Henri Dunant
94320 THIAIS 
T :
F :

> Le 29 avr. 2020 à 13:04, Ege Rubak <rubak using math.aau.dk> a écrit :
> Dear all,
> I see two issues here:
> 1. A new user has a hard time finding and using a specific function in
> spatstat. As package authors we are always interested in such reports
> and we then try to improve documentation, which is indeed a very
> important part of any software project. The package is **very**
> actively developed and documented by mainly Adrian and to a lesser
> extend by Rolf and I. All the other people listed as
> "authors"/"contributors" have contributed things such as a single new
> function, a bug report, a documentation improvement, etc. Many of them
> might not even be aware that they are mentioned on this list. This list
> has developed over many years, and it is unfortunate if it gives the
> impression that a lot of people are ready to help within 24 hours of a
> question being posted on the general R help list because we cannot give
> such guarantee -- you will have better luck with GitHub, the `spatstat`
> tag on stackoverflow or the R SIG-GEO mail list, but still no 24 hour
> guarantee is provided.
> 2. Abby replies in a very impolite tone towards the spatstat authors
> and suggests that the package isn't fit for CRAN, which I consider a
> direct insult to Adrian and all the hard work he has done to keep a
> very well-documented package on CRAN since 2002. It would have been
> nice to get a constructive suggestion on how to improve documentation
> rather than a message about the alleged poor quality of the spatstat
> package based on the documentation of a single function. If anyone
> (Abby?) has spare time available for going through the documentation
> and suggest improvements, add cross references etc. that's most
> welcome. However, we would like to receive any suggestions in normal
> polite manner via the project's GitHub page or by direct email to the
> authors.
> Regards,
> Ege
>> On Wed, 2020-04-29 at 17:31 +1200, Abby Spurdle wrote:
>> I should have noted that my comments weren't directed towards the
>> main
>> authors, but to all people listed in the description file, which is
>> many, including some R core members.
>> Also, overall, I'm impressed by the effort here. It's just I strongly
>> feel that good documentation is crucial (especially in open source),
>> and I was somewhat disappointed that, given how many people are/were
>> involved in this package, not one (after approx 24 hours) had tried
>> to
>> help answer the OP's question.
>>>> *If* it does what it claims ...
>>> Why would you doubt that it does what it claims?
>> Because I didn't test it.
>>> Wouldn't the first thing that one would try be:
>>>   ??"pp3"
>> No, because I was reading the PDF version of the documentation.
>>> Of course I'm biased, but IMHO spatstat is documented not only
>>> "properly", but superbly well! :-)
>> I started reading the pcf function first.
>> This function has the same problem, it doesn't clearly describe the
>> function arguments.
>> It doesn't say whether it applies to 2d, 3d or higher-dimensional
>> data.
>> After reading it, I had no idea whether the function could be applied
>> to 3d data or not.
>> In my opinion this is not sufficient.
>> Descriptions of function arguments and return values should be clear.
>> But here's a bigger problem.
>> The documentation says the pcf function is a generic, but the pcf3est
>> function isn't a method.
>> And the pcf documentation (along with the three methods) don't
>> reference the pcf3est function.
>> I found the pcf function via Googling the subject.
>> But unless someone goes through a list of all the help topics,
>> they're
>> unlikely to find the pcf3est function.
> -- 
> Ege Rubak, Associate Professor,
> Department of Mathematical Sciences, Aalborg University
> Skjernvej 4A, 9220 Aalborg East, Denmark
> Phone: (+45)99408861
> Mobile: (+45)30230252
> Email: rubak using math.aau.dk

More information about the R-help mailing list