[Rd] Please make lowess() generic

[Martin Maechler]

>>>>> "Greg" == Warnes, Gregory R <gregory_r_warnes at groton.pfizer.com>
>>>>>     on Wed, 21 Jan 2004 01:48:15 -0500 writes:

    Greg> As I've mentioned a number of times.  I find it very
    Greg> useful to have lowess() become a generic function so
    Greg> that a lowess.formula() can be defined.

    Greg> Below is a patch that makes both changes, as well as
    Greg> updating the corresponding help documentation.

I think most times you mentioned this, Brian told you that 
"loess" was there and was generic and was to be recommended over
lowess anyway.

Hence I think we should hear reasons why lowess is to be
preferred to loess in some cases.
[and I think I may well support your argument; I've forgotten
 which reasons I thought to have in the past when deciding for
 lowess (against loess).]

*Not* making lowess generic is one way to recommend loess ;-)

Martin