[Rd] Re: confusion() -- generic function in package mda -- generally useful?

[Kurt Hornik]

>>>>> Martin Maechler writes:

> For a private package ("soon" to be on CRAN),

> I started looking at and thinking about the function confusion() from
> the mda package and wondered if it wouldn't make sense to provide the
> generic function in base R and also think about making the default for
> the `true' argument equal to fitted(object).

> One could write methods for confusion() for almost all classifiers
> which would be a nice universal approach.  Also, the value (a
> confusion matrix contingency table with some "useful" attributes)
> could be made a bit more explicit.

> Good or not so good idea?  alternatives?

I think it would be nice to unify some of the existing code for
classification, e.g. the types in the predict methods.

Re confusion(), what would this do exactly?  The stuff in mda does too
much as exemplified by

\method{confusion}{default}(object, true, \dots)
\method{confusion}{fda}(object, data, \dots)

so the default and fda methods have surprising arguments ...?  (I think
you only want the versions for fitted model objects.)

-k
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
r-devel mailing list -- Read http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.html
Send "info", "help", or "[un]subscribe"
(in the "body", not the subject !)  To: r-devel-request@stat.math.ethz.ch
_._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._