Answering you is also a burden without the reprodicible code. I'll pass on that.
But I will say that mixing analysis with output in the same function is a
terrible habit. Come to the functional side of coding... it is much more
re-usable here.
On November 30, 2020 12:14:35 AM PST, Steven Yen <st...@ntu.edu.tw> wrote:
>I hope I can get away without presenting a replicable set of codes
>because doing so would impose burdens.
>
>I call a function which return a data frame, with the final line
>
>return(out)
>
>In one case the data frame gets printed (similar to a regression
>printout), with simply a call
>
>me.probit(obj)
>
>In another case with a similar function, I could not get the results
>printed and the only way to print is to do the following:
>
>v<-me.oprobit(obj); v
>
>This is a puzzle, and I hope to find some clues. Thanks to all.
>
>My function looks like the following:
>
>me.oprobit0 <- function(obj,mean=FALSE,vb.method,jindex=NA,
>resampling=FALSE,ndraws=100,mc.method=1,times100=TRUE,
> Stata.mu=FALSE,testing=FALSE,digits=3){
>...
>return(out) # out is a data frame
>}
>
>______________________________________________
>R-help@r-project.org mailing list -- To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see
>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.
--
Sent from my phone. Please excuse my brevity.
______________________________________________
R-help@r-project.org mailing list -- To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see
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.
