> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Hadley Wickham
> Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2011 7:32 AM
> To: Tim Hesterberg
> Cc: Henrik Bengtsson; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Rd] matrixStats: Extend to arrays too (Was: Re:
> Suggestion: Adding quick rowMin and rowMax functions to base package)
>
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Tim Hesterberg
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > For consistency with rowSums colSums rowMeans etc., the
> names should be
> > colMins colMaxs
> > rowMins rowMaxs
> > This is also consistent with S+.
>
> You mean rowMaxes, right? Or is the rule to add an s, not to
> pluralise?
In S+ we chose to just append the 's' instead of making
everyone worry about the vagarities of English spelling
and pluralization rules. We also have 'groupAnys' and
'igroupAnys' (and should have {row,col}Anys, but we don't).
The 'igroup<Summarys>' family of functions in S+ is to the
'group<Summarys>' family as 'tabulate' is to 'table': it
requires that the grouping variable be an integer in the
range 1:numGroups and in return gives fast results.
Having a similar family of functions for general arrays
would be nice also, but I think that specialized row* and col*
functions are good to have: data.frames only have rows and
columns and I can never remember the MARGIN number conventions
of apply and sweep.
Bill Dunlap
Spotfire, TIBCO Software
wdunlap tibco.com
>
> I think if you were writing a new package, you'd be better off a whole
> new naming convention that extended better to higher dimensions.
>
> Hadley
>
> --
> Assistant Professor / Dobelman Family Junior Chair
> Department of Statistics / Rice University
> http://had.co.nz/
>
> ______________________________________________
> [email protected] mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>
______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
