binary form of is() contradicts its unary form
On 30 November 2017 at 11:37, I?aki ?car <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. Best, Mehmet