>>>>> Gerrit Eichner
>>>>> on Fri, 8 Jun 2018 12:55:31 +0200 writes:
> Am 08.06.2018 um 12:02 schrieb Martin Maechler:
>>>>>>> Martin Maechler
>>>>>>> on Fri, 8 Jun 2018 11:13:24 +0200 writes:
>>
>> [..........]
>>
>> >> Thank you, Chris, for the report and
>> >> Gerrit for your proposed fix !!
>> >>
>> >> It looks good to me, but I will test some more (also with
>> >> 'row1attop=FALSE') before committing the bug fix.
>>
>> > and there, another change was needed: Instead of your
>>
>> > for (j in if (row1attop) verInd else rev(verInd))
>> > for (i in horInd) {
>>
>> > we do now need
>>
>> > for(j in verInd)
>> > for(i in if(row1attop) horInd else rev(horInd)) {
>>
>> > and the difference is of course only relevant for the
>> > non-default 'row1attop = FALSE'
>>
>> > (which some graphic experts argue to be clearly *better* than the
default,
>> > as only in that case, the upper and lower triangles of the
>> > matrix are nicely "mirrors of each other", and that is also
>> > the reason why lattice::splom() uses the equivalent of
>> > 'row1attop=FALSE')
>>
>> > I will commit the change to R-devel today - and intend to port
>> > to R-patched in time to make it into the upcoming R 3.5.1.
>>
>> Well, as I find, there are more bugs there, if you are using
>> 'horInd' and 'verInd' creatively:
>>
>> In a nice pairs(), the axis ticks (and their labels (numbers))
>> are always "on the outside" of the scatterplot matrix, and
>> nicely alternating. This is not the case unfortunately, when using
>> horInd or verInd which are *not* of the form p1:p2 (p1 <= p2)
>>
>> ==> even more changes are needed to make these cases "nice",
> Well, the *shown* axis ticks and labels do nicely alternate if
> (hor|ver)Ind = p1:p2 (p1 <= p2) is fulfilled, but not all of
> the axis ticks and labels, which one *might* wish to see, are
> currently drawn anyway ... I would consider changes which "heal"
> this as more interesting than solving this problem in full
> generality, i.e., in cases of creative use of (hor|ver)Ind.
> However, I don't think it's urgent, at all.
>> or should we *require* horInd and verInd to be of that form??
>>
>> This would not be back-compatible, but than such cases have been
>> "wrong" really in all versions of R anyway, *and* at least be
>> reordering the matrix/data.frame columns, the restriction of
>>
>> (hor|ver)Ind = p1:p2 (p1 <= p2)
>>
>> would seem acceptable, would it ?
>>
> I could live very well with that requirement (while breaking
> back-compatibility), because from my point of view a "creative"
> use of 'horInd' and 'verInd' violating (hor|ver)Ind = p1:p2
> (p1 <= p2) won't occur often.
> On the other hand, why forcing (hor|ver)Ind = p1:p2 (p1 <= p2)?
> If people violated it "they get what they deserve". ;-)
> Btw, 'horInd' and 'verInd' sort of exchange their meaning if
> row1attop = FALSE, but I this can be explained by the "work flow":
> First, (hor|ver)Ind are used to select the respective rows and
> columns from the full paris-plot, and then, row1attop is used
> when the results are drawn. I think this is sensible.
Thank you; and yes indeed, and I was not going to change that.
In fact, I've found a relatively nice solution now, which does
*not* restrict the settings of '{hor,ver}Ind' and fixes all
problems mentioned, quite back compatibly, and in some sense
perfectly labeling the axes.
==> Committed to R-devel svn c74871 a few minutes ago.
Martin
______________________________________________
R-help@r-project.org mailing list -- To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see
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.
