I've changed the subject in the hope some more people would voice an opinion...
>>>>> "MM" == Martin Maechler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>> on Sat, 17 Sep 2005 17:29:20 +0200 writes: >>>>> "Wst" == Werner Stahel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>> on Fri, 16 Sep 2005 09:37:02 +0200 writes: Wst> ........................ Wst> ........................ Wst> ........................ Wst> For most plots, I like to see a smoother along with the Wst> points. I suggest to add the option to include Wst> smoothers, not only as an argument to plot.lm, but even Wst> as an option(). I have heared of the intense Wst> discussions about options(). With Martin, we arrived Wst> at the conclusion that options() should never influence Wst> calculations and results, but is suitable to adjust Wst> outputs (numerical: digits=, graphical: smooth=) to the Wst> user's taste. MM> {and John Fox agreed, `in general'} MM> That could be a possibility, for 2.2.0 only applied to MM> plot.lm() in any case, where plot.lm() would get a new MM> argument MM> add.smooth = getOption("plot.add.smooth") MM> What do people think about the name? it would ``stick MM> with us'' -- so we better choose it well.. No reaction so far.... I've realized that I can introduce this very easily into plot.lm(): Instead of the former argument panel = points I use the new ones panel = if(add.smooth) panel.smooth else points, add.smooth = isTRUE(getOption("plot.add.smooth")), - - - Now I even propose to have options(add.smooth = TRUE) as a new default..... Do I get a reaction now? Martin ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel