On 12.02.2013 14:54, Ben Bolker wrote:
Duncan Murdoch <murdoch.duncan <at> gmail.com> writes:
[snip]
Regarding stringsAsFactors: I'm not going to defend keeping it as is,
I'll let the people who like it defend it.
Would someone (anyone) like to come forward and give us a defense
of stringsAsFactors=TRUE -- even someone who doesn't personally like
it but would like to play devil's advocate?
Sure:
I will have to change all my scripts, my teaching examples, my book, and
lots of code examples for research and particularly consulting jobs.
Personally, I think having stringsAsFactors=TRUE is not too bad for
read.table() but less useful for data.frame().
And since you ask for the devil's advocate already, related to the
subject line: Removing stars is horrible for consulting: With all those
people from biology, medicine and other fields who even ask us questions
in term of significance stars that are obviously very common for them.
Many of them will certainly ask us for the stars, and ask us to switch
to another software product once they do not get it from R. They may not
be interested in being taught about the advantages or disadvantages of
p-values or stars.
There are different use cases of R, and I want to keep stars for
consulting tasks where things have to be delivered within minutes. I am
happy with or without for teaching, where I have the time and can easily
talk about the sense and nonsense of p-values.
Best,
Uwe
What I will likely do is
make a few changes so that character vectors are automatically changed
to factors in modelling functions, so that operating with
stringsAsFactors=FALSE doesn't trigger silly warnings.
Duncan Murdoch
[apologies for snipping context: "gmane made me do it"]
______________________________________________
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
______________________________________________
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
