Message-ID: <x2ad4h7eh4.fsf@biostat.ku.dk>
Date: 2004-01-21T12:01:25Z
From: Peter Dalgaard
Subject: Please make lowess() generic
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0401210857570.2612-100000@gannet.stats>
Prof Brian Ripley <ripley@stats.ox.ac.uk> writes:
> On Wed, 21 Jan 2004, Martin Maechler wrote:
>
> > >>>>> "Greg" == Warnes, Gregory R <gregory_r_warnes@groton.pfizer.com>
> > >>>>> on Wed, 21 Jan 2004 01:48:15 -0500 writes:
> >
> > Greg> As I've mentioned a number of times. I find it very
> > Greg> useful to have lowess() become a generic function so
> > Greg> that a lowess.formula() can be defined.
> >
> > Greg> Below is a patch that makes both changes, as well as
> > Greg> updating the corresponding help documentation.
> >
> > I think most times you mentioned this, Brian told you that
> > "loess" was there and was generic and was to be recommended over
> > lowess anyway.
>
> Not quite: loess() is not generic, but it does have a formula interface
> and it was recommended over lowess() by the authors of both. (loess()
> is not generic for the reasons I sketch below.)
Not to mention that "lowess" is a speling misteak!
http://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/larson/loess.html
--
O__ ---- Peter Dalgaard Blegdamsvej 3
c/ /'_ --- Dept. of Biostatistics 2200 Cph. N
(*) \(*) -- University of Copenhagen Denmark Ph: (+45) 35327918
~~~~~~~~~~ - (p.dalgaard@biostat.ku.dk) FAX: (+45) 35327907