Message-ID: <494E8B00.4090008@idi.ntnu.no>
Date: 2008-12-21T18:29:20Z
From: Wacek Kusnierczyk
Subject: NA, where no NA should (could!) be!
In-Reply-To: <971536df0812210457g1910fa57lac99b6880ad6cdf@mail.gmail.com>
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 ;)
vQ