possible minor doc clarification?
On 2011-04-25 08:47, Sean O'Riordain wrote:
Good afternoon, As a clarification does it make sense to remove the second 'not' in the 'See Also' documentation for file_test ?
Both versions make sense to me; it's just a question of whether we think of testing for x 'being a directory' or for x 'not being a directory'. The code (for the '-f' op) actually tests !isdir and so the current wording reflects the code. Peter Ehlers
Kind regards,
Sean O'Riordain
-----
Index: src/library/utils/man/filetest.Rd
===================================================================
--- src/library/utils/man/filetest.Rd (revision 55639)
+++ src/library/utils/man/filetest.Rd (working copy)
@@ -35,7 +35,7 @@
}
\seealso{
\code{\link{file.exists}} which only tests for existence
- (\code{test -e} on some systems) but not for not being a directory.
+ (\code{test -e} on some systems) but not for being a directory.
\code{\link{file.path}}, \code{\link{file.info}}
}
[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
______________________________________________ R-devel at r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel