Message-ID: <x2vg05aqk8.fsf@biostat.ku.dk>
Date: 2003-01-31T23:44:02Z
From: Peter Dalgaard
Subject: summary.table parameter bug (PR#2514)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0301312158310.4637-100000@auk.stats>
Prof Brian D Ripley <ripley@stats.ox.ac.uk> writes:
> > parameter <- prod(sapply(m, length)) - (sum(sapply(m, length) - 1) + 1)
> >
> > Running Version 1.5-0, 2002-04-28 for Windows.
>
> So that's 4 versions old already. I don't know if this has changed (you
> don't make it easy for us by providing an example), but I do know that
> around 170 bugs have been fixed, so please update.
>
> We do expect people to test the latest version before filing a bug report.
> It takes you less time that it takes the volunteers to process the report.
In this case reading the code will do and it is still wrong. Not that
I disagree with Brian's remark in general.
[I think it has been reported before too, but today is not the day to
ask people to check the bug repository.]
I don't feel altogether happy with summary.table generating that test
in the first place. Tables are not statistical model fits - not
necessarily, anyway - so something descriptive might be better.
Wouldn't it be more obvious anyway to have a separate
independence.test() (or so) for generating the test of independence?
--
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