[R] new dgamma rate argument

[Jim Lindsey]

> 
> 
>   One possibility, which I am suggesting with my tongue firmly in my
> cheek, is that using the alternative 'rate' parameterization in the
> [dpqr]gamma functions should provoke a message saying 'The gamma
> distribution really doesn't have a "rate" parameter.  I'll do it for you
> just this once, but you really shouldn't use this!'
>   In my current caffeinated state this brings to mind many possible
> extensions for messages triggered when a user:
>   * requests "significance stars" in a statistical summary
>   * tries to evaluate the significance of main effects in the presence of
> a significant interaction term
>   * uses the "<<-" construction except in direst need
>   * tries to use nls() to fit a model without error
>   * etc., etc..
>   Maybe someone can develop "Norm, the talking Normal curve" as an add-on
> to R ("hi there! it looks like you're trying to use type III sums of
> squares!  you shouldn't do that!")  ... we could coin a new term,
> "smugware" (cf. http://www.linux-france.org/prj/jargonf/themes/WARE.html),
> or WIDIWYSD software (what it does is what you *should* do)
> 
>   ** please note all of the above is strictly facetious **

What do you mean, facetious. I think this is a great idea. ;-) Jim
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
r-help 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-help-request at stat.math.ethz.ch
_._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._