Subject: Re: Preliminary version of ts package
From: Paul Gilbert (email@example.com)
Date: Thu 29 Jul 1999 - 03:41:36 EST
PG>> I think in general this has been agreed to several times, but also
PG>> the discussion of Adrian Trapletti tseries library, which seemed to
PG>> initiate the ts library effort, there was general agreement on this
PG>> point. (See r-devel messages July 15 Re: tseries).
BDR>No, it did not! I promised to do this at the Vienna workshop in
BDR>end of the Oxford academic year precipitated this. And my reading of
BDR>correspondence is _not_ that there was agreement to follow all of
BDR>quirks. R-core does not think it has agreed to that: I had checked,
BDR>and the consensus is to improve.
There seems to be a general plan that was discussed by R-core and not
mentioned on R-devel, even when there were announcements about other
work being done on time series libraries. If S compatibility is no
longer a consideration then perhaps that should be communicated to
R-devel and even more widely. There are a number of users that have a
big investment in this.
BDR>Certainly we do not intend to get the same
BDR>wrong answers as S-PLUS!
I consider wrong answers to be special exceptions. Changing R's default
behavior for start() and end() is a design choice, not a wrong answer. I
think is is quiet reasonable to put these design choices in your own
library, but it should not be included as part of the default.
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: firstname.lastname@example.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Tue 04 Jan 2000 - 14:16:06 EST