Re: glm code bug (PR#224)

About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Other groups

Subject: Re: glm code bug (PR#224)
320098218774-0001@t-online.de
Date: Wed 14 Jul 1999 - 10:01:47 EST


Message-Id: <199907140001.CAA25350@pubhealth.ku.dk>

ripley@stats.ox.ac.uk schrieb:
> On Tue, 13 Jul 1999 Bill.Venables@cmis.csiro.au wrote:
>
> > Peter,
>
> [Peter only fixes most of the bugs....]
>
> > There is a clear and simple bug in glm() that I have noticed in
> > 0.64.2 (Windows and Unix) but may have been present in earlier
> > versions.
>
> It has a long history: the expand.dots = FALSE was introduced in 0.63,
> but the second call has been wrong for longer.
>
> > The two marked lines should clearly be
> >
> > call <- match.call()
> >
> > and
> >
> > mf <- match.call(expand.dots = FALSE)
>
> as in S.
>
> I've committed this for 0.65.0.
>
> We have had various discussions about glm: it is proving very hard to
> maintain (that is, find the bugs) and is irritatingly different from S.
> One option is to reimplement it.

My opinion as a simple user ... reimplement glm is a very good idea!. Just
for the "cosmetic" point of view: please, take out all of these silly *`s
indicating significant levels in the output. Also, if somebody needs the "null
deviance" make it as optional, and not in the stardard output.

Best regards,
Pablo.

-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
r-devel 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-devel-request@stat.math.ethz.ch
_._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._


About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Other groups

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Tue 04 Jan 2000 - 14:16:05 EST