[Rd] xy.coords

[Duncan Murdoch]

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 needs to specify NULL there.  It's the default 
value for y in the high level functions that call xy.coords, so it is 
put there automatically.

Duncan Murdoch

> 
> On 12/31/05, Duncan Murdoch <murdoch at stats.uwo.ca> 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
>>>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 continue to be backward compatible with
>>>existing usages.
>>
>>But a simpler change is to change the documentation, and it achieves all
>>of those objectives.
>>
>>Duncan Murdoch
>>
>>>On 12/31/05, Duncan Murdoch <murdoch at stats.uwo.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>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 would want to use xy.coords(y ~ x)?
>>>>Normally xy.coords() is used in other functions, and they can default y
>>>>to NULL (see plot.default, for example).
>>>>
>>>>Duncan Murdoch
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On 12/31/05, Duncan Murdoch <murdoch at stats.uwo.ca> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>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
>>>>>>>        plotting coordinates.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   time series: the x values are taken to be 'time(x)' and the y
>>>>>>>        values to be the time series.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   matrix with two columns: the first is assumed to contain the x
>>>>>>>        values and the second the y values.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>however, in fact, if y is missing an error is given. e.g.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>x <- 1:3
>>>>>>>y <- 4:6
>>>>>>>xy.coords(y ~ x) # error
>>>>>>>xy.coords(cbind(x, y)) # error
>>>>>>>xy.coords(ts(y)) # error
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Looking at the code, is.null(y) in the first line of the
>>>>>>>body should be missing(y) .
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It would be better to change the docs to say "if 'y' is NULL ...".  The
>>>>>>code has been the way it is for years and years, and is widely used.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Changing the test to missing(y) would mean all existing uses that put a
>>>>>>NULL there would need to be changed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Adding a default value of NULL to y would have less impact, but I'd
>>>>>>still be worried about it having long-range bad effects.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Duncan Murdoch
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
> 
> ______________________________________________
> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel