Oh crap. So sorry. This is my fault (obviously).
Prior to the new ties methods being added in 2.0.0
I modified the source to do this myself. So looks
like I forgot: (1) that my modified code was still
being accessed default (thought I'd removed it) and
(2) that I had added in the 'decreasing' argument.
It did seem very odd to me when I saw the undocumented
argument.
Sorry for the this faulty bug report.
BTW, would someone please add a 'decreasing' argument to rank.
It seems natural to have one, just like sort, and only
involves about two lines of code and a few lines of
editing to the help file.
Thanks,
Doug
On Wed, 21 Oct 2004, Peter Dalgaard wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > I just found that rank() has a 'decreasing' argument that is not documented in
> > its
> > help page. I checked my version of 2.0.0 (original release hence unpatched)
> > and
> > it is not documented there. For curiousity I also went back to version 1.8.1
> > and
> > checked the function (not the documentation)and at that point rank() had not
> > yet
> > acquired the 'decreasing' argument.
> >
> > It's ironic as I was wishing that rank() had a decreasing option like
> > sort does, and then I found that it already does.
>
> Eh????
>
> I have
>
> > rank
> function (x, na.last = TRUE, ties.method = c("average", "first",
> "random", "max", "min"))
> {....
>
> And we do have QC tools that work very hard to ensure that all
> arguments are documented!
>
> --
> O__ ---- Peter Dalgaard Blegdamsvej 3
> c/ /'_ --- Dept. of Biostatistics 2200 Cph. N
> (*) \(*) -- University of Copenhagen Denmark Ph: (+45) 35327918
> ~~~~~~~~~~ - ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) FAX: (+45) 35327907
>
______________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
