On Monday 21 March 2005 11:08, Martin Maechler wrote:
"AndyL" == Liaw, Andy <andy_liaw at merck.com>
on Mon, 21 Mar 2005 08:14:20 -0500 writes:
AndyL> I'd suggest dotcharts, such as:
AndyL> x1 <- sample(letters[1:4], 100, replace=TRUE, prob=c(.2,
.3, .4, .1)) AndyL> x2 <- sample(letters[1:4], 100, replace=TRUE,
prob=c(.1, .4, .3, .2)) AndyL> f1 <- table(x1) / length(x1)
AndyL> f2 <- table(x2) / length(x2)
AndyL> lev <- factor(c(names(f1), names(f2)))
AndyL> require(lattice)
AndyL> dotplot(lev ~ c(f1, f2), groups=rep(1:2, c(length(f1),
length(f2))), AndyL> panel=panel.superpose)
yes. Maybe slightly even more useful --- and closer to the
plot(table(.)), ...) that Witold mentioned would be the
following slight variation:
dotplot(lev ~ c(f1, f2), groups=rep(1:2, c(length(f1), length(f2))),
panel=panel.superpose, type =c("p","h"))
(Missed this earlier, sorry.) Wouldn't grouped barcharts be more effective? e.g., barplot(rbind(f1, f2), beside = TRUE) or barchart(~f1 + f2, origin = 0) In fact, one way to trick barchart into producing what I think Eryk originally wanted would be barchart(~f1 + (-f2), stack = TRUE) (I don't see an obvious way of doing this with barplot.) Deepayan