Martin Maechler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>>>> "Duncan" == Duncan Murdoch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>>>> on Sat, 03 Sep 2005 11:40:18 -0400 writes:
>
> Duncan> John Sorkin wrote:
> >> A question for R (and perhaps S and SPlus) historians.
> >>
> >> Does anyone know the reason for the inconsistency in the
> >> way that the action that should be taken when data are
> >> missing is specified? There are several variants,
> >> na.action, na.omit, "T", TRUE, etc. I know that a foolish
> >> consistency is the hobgoblin of a small mind, but
> >> consistency can make things easier.
> >>
> >> My question is not meant as a complaint. I very much
> >> admire the R development team. I simply am curious.
>
> Duncan> R and S have been developed by lots of people, over
> Duncan> a long time. I think that's it.
>
> yes, but there's a bit more to it.
>
> First, the question was "wrong" (don't you just hate such an answer?):
> A more interesting question would have asked why there was
> 'na.rm = {TRUE, FALSE}'
> on one hand and
> 'na.action = {na.omit, na.replace, .....}'
> on the other hand,
> since only these two appear as function *arguments*
> {at least in `decent' S and R functions}.
So cor() is "indecent" (with its use= argument)? ;-)
--
O__ ---- Peter Dalgaard Øster Farimagsgade 5, Entr.B
c/ /'_ --- Dept. of Biostatistics PO Box 2099, 1014 Cph. K
(*) \(*) -- University of Copenhagen Denmark Ph: (+45) 35327918
~~~~~~~~~~ - ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) FAX: (+45) 35327907
______________________________________________
R-help@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide! http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
