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" <pda...@gmail.com> An: "Robert McGehee" <rmcge...@walleyetrading.net> Cc: "Jens Oehlschlägel" <jens.oehlschlae...@truecluster.com>, "r-devel@r-project.org" <r-devel@r-project.org> Betreff: Re: [Rd] 'ordered' destroyed to 'factor' > On 16 Jun 2017, at 15:59 , Robert McGehee <rmcge...@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....@cbs.dk Priv: pda...@gmail.com ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel