[R] verInd= and HorInd= arguments to pairs() function

[Gerrit Eichner]

Am 08.06.2018 um 12:02 schrieb Martin Maechler:
>>>>>> Martin Maechler
>>>>>>      on Fri, 8 Jun 2018 11:13:24 +0200 writes:
> 
> [..........]
> 
>      >> Thank you, Chris, for the report and
>      >> Gerrit for your proposed fix !!
>      >>
>      >> It looks good to me,  but I will test some more (also with
>      >> 'row1attop=FALSE')  before committing the bug fix.
> 
>      > and there, another change was needed:  Instead of your
> 
>      > for (j in if (row1attop) verInd else rev(verInd))
>      >    for (i in horInd) {
> 
>      > we do now need
> 
>      > for(j in verInd)
>      >    for(i in if(row1attop) horInd else rev(horInd)) {
> 
>      > and the difference is of course only relevant for the
>      > non-default  'row1attop = FALSE'
> 
>      > (which some graphic experts argue to be clearly *better* than the default,
>      > as only in that case,  the upper and lower triangles of the
>      > matrix are nicely "mirrors of each other", and that is also
>      > the reason why  lattice::splom()  uses the equivalent of
>      > 'row1attop=FALSE')
> 
>      > I will commit the change to R-devel today - and intend to port
>      > to R-patched in time to make it into the upcoming R 3.5.1.
> 
> Well, as I find, there are more bugs there, if you are using
> 'horInd' and 'verInd' creatively:
> 
> In a nice pairs(), the axis ticks (and their labels (numbers))
> are always "on the outside" of the scatterplot matrix, and
> nicely alternating.  This is not the case unfortunately, when using
>   horInd or verInd which are *not* of the form p1:p2 (p1 <= p2)
> 
> ==> even more changes are needed to make these cases "nice",

Well, the *shown* axis ticks and labels do nicely alternate if
(hor|ver)Ind = p1:p2 (p1 <= p2) is fulfilled, but not all of
the axis ticks and labels, which one *might* wish to see, are
currently drawn anyway ... I would consider changes which "heal"
this as more interesting than solving this problem in full
generality, i.e., in cases of creative use of (hor|ver)Ind.
However, I don't think it's urgent, at all.


> or  should we *require* horInd and verInd to be of that form??
> 
> This would not be back-compatible, but than such cases have been
> "wrong" really in all versions of R anyway, *and*  at least be
> reordering the matrix/data.frame columns, the restriction of
> 
>      (hor|ver)Ind =  p1:p2 (p1 <= p2)
> 
> would seem acceptable, would it ?
> 

I could live very well with that requirement (while breaking
back-compatibility), because from my point of view a "creative"
use of 'horInd' and 'verInd' violating (hor|ver)Ind = p1:p2
(p1 <= p2) won't occur often.

On the other hand, why forcing (hor|ver)Ind = p1:p2 (p1 <= p2)?
If people violated it "they get what they deserve". ;-)

Btw, 'horInd' and 'verInd' sort of exchange their meaning if
row1attop = FALSE, but I this can be explained by the "work flow":
First, (hor|ver)Ind are used to select the respective rows and
columns from the full paris-plot, and then, row1attop is used
when the results are drawn. I think this is sensible.

  Regards  --  Gerrit