> Your site is interesting .... the little example with the graphics is > actually what i was thinking about. Now I've tagged 2 packages as "robust > analysis" but if i press the Tags button i see only my tags - i don't see the > graphics tags anymore. I would be extremely happy if you get enough > motivation to continue this effort.
Oops, that was a dumb bug in my code, now fixed. > Also it is staggering that there are over 1200 packages for R .... i was > suspecting close to 1000 ..... And the site is a couple of weeks out of date, so there are probably even more. > About reviewing packages - i am not sure i am versed enough for that but at > least it might be of interest that some packages do not like to be loaded > together for some of their functions to work properly. The example i know of > is "robust" and "mvoutlier". I like both packages and i use them quite often > .... but now i know when i can have both loaded together and when i have to > detach one or another. On the other hand i've published some scientific > articles in which i've used R and different packages. It might be of interest > to have a place to cite these articles, even if their main focuss is not R > itself, but R was used to perform the analysis. The intent isn't to provide large in-depth reviews, but to make it easy to add comments like yours above. I agree it would be also nice to have some central place that lists all articles which cite a given R package, but that would be a lot of work. Hadley -- http://had.co.nz/ ______________________________________________ R-help@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
