Dear All,
Martin Maechler has asked me to send this to R-devel for discussion
after I submitted it as an enhancement request (
https://bugs.r-project.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17563).
At this time, the update.formula() method always performs a number of
transformations on the results, eliminat
> Gabriel Becker
> on Thu, 16 May 2019 15:47:57 -0700 writes:
> Hi Hadley,
> Thanks for the counterpoint. Response below.
> On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 1:59 PM Hadley Wickham
wrote:
>> The existing behaviour seems inutitive to me. I would consider these
>> invarian
Hi Martin,
Thanks for chiming in. Responses inline.
On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 12:32 AM Martin Maechler
wrote:
> > Gabriel Becker
> > on Thu, 16 May 2019 15:47:57 -0700 writes:
>
> > Hi Hadley,
> > Thanks for the counterpoint. Response below.
>
> > On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 1
> Gabriel Becker
> on Fri, 17 May 2019 01:06:11 -0700 writes:
> Hi Martin,
> Thanks for chiming in. Responses inline.
> On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 12:32 AM Martin Maechler
> wrote:
>> > Gabriel Becker
>> > on Thu, 16 May 2019 15:47:57 -0700 writes:
Dear All,
I've noticed an inconsistency between boxplot & barplot regarding the
interaction between
switching to a horizontal graph and the limits.
par(mfrow = c(2, 2))
boxplot(1:10, xlim = c(0.1, 5), ylim = c(1, 10),
log = "y", horizontal=FALSE, xlab = "X", ylab = "Y")
axis(1)
# Ch
Thank you very much for your answer. If I understand it correctly, for an
ALTREP class, a non-deep copy only creates a new ALTREP object but refers
to the same underlying SEXP as the old ALTREP object has, is it correct?
But since they all share the same underlying SEXP, will change of the value
in
I don't know the answer to your question.
However, here's a side issue that may be relevant.
Last year, I tried creating my own ecdf object, and redefined the print
method for ecdf.
It worked ok in the console, interactively.
However, when I tried calling the method (with autoprinting) inside an
