I agree that I was mixing up the two issues. On 9/24/05, John Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dear Gabor, > > This behaviour makes sense to me, since in the first case the response is > quantitative and the explanatory variable a factor (hence, parallel > boxplots), while in the second it's vice-versa (hence parallel stacked > bars). That is, the primary distinction, I think, isn't the orientation of > the axes but the nature of the variables. > > Regards, > John > > -------------------------------- > John Fox > Department of Sociology > McMaster University > Hamilton, Ontario > Canada L8S 4M4 > 905-525-9140x23604 > http://socserv.mcmaster.ca/jfox > -------------------------------- > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gabor Grothendieck > > Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2005 10:49 AM > > To: R-devel > > Subject: [Rd] plot, spineplot, boxplot in R 2.2.0 > > > > I noticed, what seened to me, to be odd. These produce a > > boxplot in the first case and a spineplot in the second case > > in R .2.2.0: > > > > plot(Sepal.Length ~ Species, iris) > > plot(Species ~ Sepal.Length, iris) > > > > What if one wants to exchange axes? Does the fact that this > > seemingly innocuous change result in completely different > > graphics make sense? Is it desirable? > > > > ______________________________________________ > > R-devel@r-project.org mailing list > > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel > >
______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
