Message-ID: <x2adjpv4d5.fsf@biostat.ku.dk>
Date: 2002-12-01T21:03:34Z
From: Peter Dalgaard
Subject: Quasi-bug in boxplot().
In-Reply-To: <200212012029.QAA20889@gelfand.math.unb.ca>
Rolf Turner <rolf at math.unb.ca> writes:
> > It is defined *not* to work. The call is
> >
> > boxplot(x, ..., range = 1.5, width = NULL, varwidth = FALSE,
> > notch = FALSE, outline = TRUE, names, boxwex = 0.8, plot = TRUE,
> > border = par("fg"), col = NULL, log = "", pars = NULL,
> > horizontal = FALSE, add = FALSE, at = NULL)
> >
> > and argument after ... are not partially matched.
> >
> > See, e.g. `S Programming' p.40.
>
> O.K. That's clear enough now. But ***WHY***? I.e. why structure the
> arguments of boxplot() in this way? I.e. why put the ... argument
> before everything but x, so that partial matching cannot be used on
> the rest of the arguments?
Not quite sure about boxplot.default. In boxplot.formula however,
there's a subset argument that will cause some grief if partially
matched. One other side effect of putting arguments after ... is that
it prevents positional matching, which might be the point in
boxplot.default -- avoid coding like boxplot(x, 1.5, NULL, TRUE, TRUE)
and the ensuing complaints if the argument order gets reshuffled.
--
O__ ---- Peter Dalgaard Blegdamsvej 3
c/ /'_ --- Dept. of Biostatistics 2200 Cph. N
(*) \(*) -- University of Copenhagen Denmark Ph: (+45) 35327918
~~~~~~~~~~ - (p.dalgaard at biostat.ku.dk) FAX: (+45) 35327907
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
r-help mailing list -- Read http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.html
Send "info", "help", or "[un]subscribe"
(in the "body", not the subject !) To: r-help-request at stat.math.ethz.ch
_._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._