From: Gordon K Smyth <smyth_at_wehi.EDU.AU>

Date: Tue 18 Jan 2005 - 09:28:26 EST

R-devel@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list

https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel Received on Tue Jan 18 08:36:08 2005

Date: Tue 18 Jan 2005 - 09:28:26 EST

On Tue, January 18, 2005 8:02 am, Martin Maechler said:

>>>>>> "GS" == Gordon Smyth <smyth@wehi.edu.au>

*>>>>>> on Sun, 16 Jan 2005 19:55:35 +1100 writes:
**> GS> 3. Upper case values for method "BH" or "YH" are also
**> GS> accepted.
**>
**> I don't see why we'd want this. The S language is
**> case-sensitive and we don't want to lead people to believe
**> that case wouldn't matter.
*

Well, people like to capitalize people's names, especially initials like BH and YH. I'm happy with whatever you think it appropriate.

> GS> 5. p.adjust() now works columnwise on numeric

*> GS> data.frames (as does cumsum and friends).
**>
**> well, "cusum and friends" are either generic or groupgeneric
**> (for the "Math" group) -- there's a Math.data.frame group
**> method.
**> This is quite different for p.adjust which is not generic and
**> I'm not (yet?) convinced it should become so.
**>
**> People can easily use sapply(d.frame, p.adjust, method) if needed;
**>
**> In any case it's not in the spirit of R's OO programming to
**> special case "data.frame" inside a function such as p.adjust
*

I'm happy with whatever you think is most in the spirit of R. My reasoning was that p.adjust() and cumsum() are both operators on R^n (Euclidean space of n-tuples of real numbers) to R^n, and all such operators should behave in the same way as far as possible. If you want to argue for a consistent OO programming style, shouldn't every function be generic?

> I'm not sure yet if it wasn't worth to allow for other NA

*> treatment, like the "treat as if 1" {which my code proposition
**> was basically doing} or rather mre sophisticated procedure like
**> "integrating" over all P ~ U[0,1] marginals for each missing
**> value, approximating the integral possibly by "Monte-Carlo"
**> even quasi random numbers.
*

Don't forget that "strong control" of FWER implies control over all combinations of TRUE/FALSE for the null hypotheses. So you can't assume that all the hypotheses for the NAs are FALSE and hence that the corresponding p-values should be uniformly distributed. One might possibly use it as a conservative assumption.

Gordon

R-devel@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list

https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel Received on Tue Jan 18 08:36:08 2005

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8
: Tue 18 Jan 2005 - 11:22:12 EST
*