4 ms·

Code reference: https://github.com/wch/r-source/blob/b156e3a711967f58131e23c1b1dc1ea90e2f0c43/src/library/utils/R/str.R#L57 https://github.com/wch/r-source/blo

• kaeluka 11y ago
  Sure. "Exclusionary as hell" is a stretch. In either case, I still think it shouldn't be in anyone's code base. There are some people who are offended by it and -- even though I'm not one of them -- the project can only lose by keeping code like this.
• ricksplat 11y ago
  Crikey seeing this in context really brings home the triviality of this whole thing. The only reason somebody would be offended by this would be if they knew what it meant in the first place - it's plausible that it's accidental. Yes there is a case for making the change but in doing so you're acknowledging that it was a mistake in the first place (because an observer attributed it as such) and you're setting a precedent - are you going to have to attend to every prude that objects to anything? Anybody who is smart enough to read code should be smart enough to see this for what it is. IMHO if this guy mounted a campaign on this issue banning was appropriate if a little heavy handed. A subtle talking to might be better but raising a bug is a matter of record, and that makes things a little trickier.
• Cthulhu_ 11y ago
  Or sexist, for that matter. Giving head is not limited to specific genders, if that even was the intent of that variable name. It probably isn't about the variable name though, but about the response from the developer to the PR.