Have you looked at
https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-devel/2006-December/044111.html
?
That seems the appropriate mailing list if you want to continue this
discussion.
On Mon, 1 Jan 2007, ivo welch wrote:
> obviously not. any other suggestion? of course, it would be even
> better if someone wh
obviously not. any other suggestion? of course, it would be even
better if someone who knew what he is doing were to add this
functionality on demand (e.g., optional parameters) to the standard lm
classes. just a thought...
On 1/1/07, Michael Kubovy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 1, 2007,
On Jan 1, 2007, at 9:00 PM, ivo welch wrote:
> I have written a short lme.R function, which adds normalized
> coefficients and White heteroskedasticity-adjusted statistics to the
> standard output. Otherwise, it behaves like lm.
Is it a good idea to call it lme, since there's a widely used lme()
Dear R readers:
I have written a short lme.R function, which adds normalized
coefficients and White heteroskedasticity-adjusted statistics to the
standard output. Otherwise, it behaves like lm. This is of course
trivial for experts, but for me and other amateur users perhaps
helpful.
y= rnorm
