On Sat, 2005-09-24 at 11:48 -0400, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
> 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
On Sat, 2005-09-24 at 12:00 -0500, Marc Schwartz wrote:
> >From 2.0.0 beta ?plot.factor:
Ack...That should be 2.2.0 beta.
Sorry for the typo.
Marc
__
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
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 o
On 9/24/05, Marc Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-09-24 at 11:48 -0400, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
> > 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, ir
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-
