[Martin Maechler]
>Hence --- for back compatibility reasons -- I now tend to agree
>with Duncan Murdoch, and would not change xy.coords() behavior
>at all, but simply amend the documentation.
It's fine, thanks a lot.
--
François Pinard http://pinard.progiciels-bpi.ca
> "FrPi" == François Pinard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> on Mon, 5 Jun 2006 08:11:20 -0400 writes:
FrPi> [Martin Maechler]
>> Thanks a lot, Francois, for your careful reading and
>> careful report!
FrPi> Thanks for being receptive! :-)
FrPi> Another problem in the same a
[Martin Maechler]
> Thanks a lot, Francois, for your careful reading and careful report!
Thanks for being receptive! :-)
>FrPi> Another problem in the same area: the documentation lies
>FrPi> about how the function acts when given a data.frame. From
>FrPi> the code, a data.frame is
On 6/5/2006 5:30 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> "FrPi" == François Pinard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> on Sun, 4 Jun 2006 06:27:53 +0200 (CEST) writes:
>
> FrPi> Hi, people.
> FrPi> xy.coords() does not behave like its documentation says, when given
> some
> FrPi> matrices.
> "FrPi" == François Pinard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> on Sun, 4 Jun 2006 06:27:53 +0200 (CEST) writes:
FrPi> Hi, people.
FrPi> xy.coords() does not behave like its documentation says, when given
some
FrPi> matrices. ?xy.coords says:
FrPi> If 'y' is 'NULL' and 'x' is a
On 12/31/2005 4:09 PM, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
> On 12/31/05, Duncan Murdoch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>On 12/31/2005 3:26 PM, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
>>
>>>I think this is just playng with words.
>>
>>I'm starting to be convinced of that by the fact that you haven't posted
>>any sample co
On 12/31/05, Duncan Murdoch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 12/31/2005 3:26 PM, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
> > I think this is just playng with words.
>
> I'm starting to be convinced of that by the fact that you haven't posted
> any sample code where using a single parameter would be desirable.
Lo
On 12/31/2005 3:26 PM, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
> I think this is just playng with words.
I'm starting to be convinced of that by the fact that you haven't posted
any sample code where using a single parameter would be desirable.
The fact that its always been
> like that is not sufficient and
I think this is just playng with words. The fact that its always been
like that is not sufficient and is not related to consistency.
xyz.coords also does not work in accordance with the help file
so the fact that the error extends to it just means they are both
in error.
Modularity means loose co
On 12/31/2005 12:57 PM, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
> It does not achieve design consistency.
It's consistent with the way it has been for at least 7 years, and is
consistent with xyz.coords().
One would have to
> specify NULL but that should not really be necessary.
In fact, one almost never n
It does not achieve design consistency. One would have to
specify NULL but that should not really be necessary.
On 12/31/05, Duncan Murdoch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 12/31/2005 12:21 PM, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
> > I think the point is that (1) it does not work as documented and (2) in
>
On 12/31/2005 12:21 PM, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
> I think the point is that (1) it does not work as documented and (2) in
> most functions one can omit unnecessary args without having
> to specify NULL so its behvaior seems inconsistent from a design
> viewpoint. By allowing either missing or NU
I think the point is that (1) it does not work as documented and (2) in
most functions one can omit unnecessary args without having
to specify NULL so its behvaior seems inconsistent from a design
viewpoint. By allowing either missing or NULL it will work as documented,
and probably intended, yet
On 12/31/2005 8:57 AM, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
> It could be changed to missing(y) || is.null(y) and the docs amended.
> That way existing code will continue to work and code that otherwise
> gives an error currently, but should have worked, will now work too.
Can you give an example where you w
It could be changed to missing(y) || is.null(y) and the docs amended.
That way existing code will continue to work and code that otherwise
gives an error currently, but should have worked, will now work too.
On 12/31/05, Duncan Murdoch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 12/30/2005 10:10 PM, Gabor Gro
On 12/30/2005 10:10 PM, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
> In ?xy.coords it says:
>
> If 'y' is missing and 'x' is a
>
> formula: of the form 'yvar ~ xvar'. 'xvar' and 'yvar' are used as
> x and y variables.
>
> list: containing components 'x' and 'y', these are used to define
16 matches
Mail list logo
