[Rd] 'ordered' destroyed to 'factor'

[Joris Meys]

Dear Jens,

multiple people have given you multiple reasons as to why your request
cannot be implemented for basic logical reasons. You also got a workaround
for the special case where all factors have all the same levels in exactly
the same order.

If you believe it's possible to implement this in a way that doesn't break
anything else, please give at least an algorithm that explains HOW R should
do this, and possibly provide a patch. If you fail to do either of them,
it's rather ungrateful to piss on the very people that devote tons of FREE
time to the development of something you're using 17 years now.

And for the record: R handles ordinal data pretty well thank you very much.
Maybe after 17 years, you could do the effort of taking a look at
options("contrasts"). Let it be an eye-opener.

On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 12:34 PM, "Jens Oehlschlägel" <
jens.oehlschlaegel at truecluster.com> wrote:

> Defending the status quo misses the point that R *could* handle ordinal
> data with a fixed set of levels but actually *does not*. Although it would
> be useful. Even if this does not imply to handle any possible straw-man
> situations. Having data-types for nominal, ordinal, and interval-scale data
> is - in theory - one of the major advantages of S over SAS. But *having*
> without *handling* means: only in theory, not in practice. Has r-devel
> really lost the momentum for continuous improvement, to converge R to an
> optimum? I struggle to recognize the project I loved in 2000.
>
>
> Gesendet: Freitag, 16. Juni 2017 um 18:31 Uhr
> Von: "peter dalgaard" <pdalgd at gmail.com>
> An: "Robert McGehee" <rmcgehee at walleyetrading.net>
> Cc: "Jens Oehlschlägel" <jens.oehlschlaegel at truecluster.com>, "
> r-devel at r-project.org" <r-devel at r-project.org>
> Betreff: Re: [Rd] 'ordered' destroyed to 'factor'
> > On 16 Jun 2017, at 15:59 , Robert McGehee <rmcgehee at walleyetrading.net>
> wrote:
> >
> > For instance, what would you expect to get from unlist() if each element
> of the list had different levels, or were both ordered, but in a different
> way, or if some elements of the list were factors and others were ordered
> factors?
> >> unlist(list(ordered(c("a","b")), ordered(c("b","a"))))
> > [1] ?
>
> Those actually have the same levels in the same order: a < b
>
> Possibly, this brings the point home more clearly
>
> unlist(list(ordered(c("a","c")), ordered(c("b","d"))))
>
> (Notice that alphabetical order is largely irrelevant, so all of these
> level orderings are equally possible:
>
> a < c < b < d
> a < b < c < d
> a < b < d < c
> b < a < c < d
> b < a < d < c
> b < d < a < c
>
> ).
>
> -pd
> --
> Peter Dalgaard, Professor,
> Center for Statistics, Copenhagen Business School
> Solbjerg Plads 3, 2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark
> Phone: (+45)38153501
> Office: A 4.23
> Email: pd.mes at cbs.dk Priv: PDalgd at gmail.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________
> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>



-- 
Joris Meys
Statistical consultant

Ghent University
Faculty of Bioscience Engineering
Department of Mathematical Modelling, Statistics and Bio-Informatics

tel :  +32 (0)9 264 61 79
Joris.Meys at Ugent.be
-------------------------------
Disclaimer : http://helpdesk.ugent.be/e-maildisclaimer.php

	[[alternative HTML version deleted]]