Re: R-beta: Bug or feature? [+ better histograms]

Ross Ihaka (ihaka@stat.auckland.ac.nz)
Mon, 18 Aug 1997 11:42:02 +1200 (NZST)


Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 11:42:02 +1200 (NZST)
Message-Id: <199708172342.LAA09442@stat1.stat.auckland.ac.nz>
From: Ross Ihaka <ihaka@stat.auckland.ac.nz>
To: r-help@stat.math.ethz.ch
Subject: Re: R-beta: Bug or feature?  [+ better histograms]
In-Reply-To: <9708172313.AA15474@attunga.stats.adelaide.edu.au>
 <9708172313.AA15474@attunga.stats.adelaide.edu.au>

Bill Venables writes:
 > First a bit of an explanation.  Brian Ripley and I are firmly of
 > the opinion that, to be any use in teaching at all, histograms
 > should be nonparametric estimators of the probability density
 > function.  That is, the vertical scale should be a relative
 > frequency density scale.  It seems impossible to get this in R, so
 > here is a function (+ a few extras) that does give you a "true"
 > histogram, (unless you are peverse enough to request otherwise.)

Oh goody!  I HATE the present hist; partly because of the
frequency/density aspect, but mainly because if I ask for 10 cells I
expect to get 10 cells, not 7 or 35 or whatever.  I'd like propose
that the present hist get renamed hist.old (or something similar) and
that Bill's "truehist" become the true "hist".

Any takers?
	Ross
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
r-help mailing list -- Read http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.html
Send "info", "help", or "[un]subscribe"
(in the "body", not the subject !)  To: r-help-request@stat.math.ethz.ch
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=