On Tue, 12 Aug 1997, Ross Ihaka wrote:
> The have been a few prods to create an S-like matrix class for R. A
> major reason for having a matrix class seems to be that people get
> bitten by the default behavior of the drop= parameter to "[".
That
> being the case does it make sense to change the semantics of "["
> rather than introducing a new class?
I think changing the semantics is preferable, in part because it fixes the
drop problem automatically, rather than requiring everyone to use a new
feature. Creating a Matrix class would not fix the array problem for
arrays of dimension 3 or more, either.
However, a Matrix library might be a nice place to put matrix features
that not everyone needs. This helps keep the size of R down. Libraries
that can be loaded and unloaded seem like the ideal place to put a whole
lot of things, rather than taking the S-PLUS approach of bundling gam and
trees and nlme and everything else together.
Thomas Lumley
-----------------------------------------------------+------
Biostatistics : "Never attribute to malice what :
Uni of Washington : can be adequately explained by :
Box 357232 : incompetence" - Hanlon's Razor :
Seattle WA 98195-7232 : :
------------------------------------------------------------
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
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
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-