Re: [Rd] documentation for rank() (PR#7298)

From: Prof Brian Ripley <ripley_at_stats.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Thu 21 Oct 2004 - 16:30:45 EST


On Wed, 20 Oct 2004, Douglas Grove wrote:

> Oh crap. So sorry. This is my fault (obviously).
> Prior to the new ties methods being added in 2.0.0
> I modified the source to do this myself. So looks
> like I forgot: (1) that my modified code was still
> being accessed default (thought I'd removed it) and
> (2) that I had added in the 'decreasing' argument.
>
> It did seem very odd to me when I saw the undocumented
> argument.
>
> Sorry for the this faulty bug report.
>
> BTW, would someone please add a 'decreasing' argument to rank.
> It seems natural to have one, just like sort, and only
> involves about two lines of code and a few lines of
> editing to the help file.

I don't think so. At the very least, each tie method needs a change, as may the handling of NAs. Also the writing a comprehensible help page will become very complex.

What is the need? Rank works for numeric vectors, and why can't you just call rank(-x) or n+1-rank(x)? The reason that does not work for sort() is that it deals with non-numeric vectors.

Incidentally, we might need a `last' value for ties.method.

-- 
Brian D. Ripley,                  ripley@stats.ox.ac.uk
Professor of Applied Statistics,  http://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/~ripley/
University of Oxford,             Tel:  +44 1865 272861 (self)
1 South Parks Road,                     +44 1865 272866 (PA)
Oxford OX1 3TG, UK                Fax:  +44 1865 272595

______________________________________________
R-devel@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Received on Thu Oct 21 16:37:00 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri 18 Mar 2005 - 09:00:38 EST