similar to: boxplot and bxp do not respect xlim by default (PR#9756)

Full_Name: Steve Ellison Version: 2.4.1 OS: Windows, Linux Submission from: (NULL) (194.73.101.157) bxp() allows specifcation of box locations with at=, but neither adjusts xlim= to fit at nor does it respect xlim provided explicitly. This is because bxp() now includes explicit xlim as c(0.5, n+0.5), without checking for explicitly supplied xlim (or ylim if horizontal). This also prevents

Boxplot and bxp seem to have changed behaviour a bit of late (R 2.4.1). Or maybe I am mis-remembering. An annoying feature is that while at=3:6 will work, there is no way of overriding the default xlim of 0.5 to n+0.5. That prevents plotting boxes on, for example, interval scales - a useful thing to do at times. I really can see no good reason for bxp to hard-core the xlim=c(0.5, n+0.5) in the

A student asked me if it was possible to draw boxplots where the boxes themselves were grouped: I was able to hack boxplot.formula() to do the right thing, more or less, by incorporating an argument (space) and some code from barplot. with the extended boxplot.formula() below, the following commands "do the right thing" (produce boxes grouped by levels of the second factor): r =

Boxplot and bxp seem to have changed behaviour a bit of late (R 2.4.1). Or maybe I am mis-remembering. An annoying feature is that while at=3:6 will work, there is no way of overriding the default xlim of 0.5 to n+0.5. That prevents plotting boxes on, for example, interval scales - a useful thing to do at times. I really can see no good reason for bxp to hard-core the xlim=c(0.5, n+0.5) in the

It's not new anyway. You see the same behaviour with boxplot(dat, ylab=quote(X[2])) and it boils down to the use of do.call("bxp", ...) in the internals. As a general matter, expression() exists to prevent this sort of confusion, e.g., in this construction, > X <- quote(Y+1); bquote(f(.(X))) f(Y + 1) is indistinguishable from just entering f(Y+1), so f has no way of

Dear R-core team, I think I found a small inconsistency in the boxplot function. I don't want to post it as a bug since I'm not sure this might be considered as one according to the FAQ --- and this is not a major problem. Don't hesitate to tell me if I'm wrong. If you try to do a boxplot on a matrix and set the "at" argument to some vector different from 1:n, n is the

Hi there, I get a strange behaviour of a boxplot with the following code. There seems to be a problem with the xlim-parameter. Did I do anything wrong? What else can I do to force the boxplot to have a defined x-range? x <- rnorm(100) boxplot(x, notch=TRUE, xlab=parameter, xlim <- c(-4,4), horizontal = TRUE) Antje

I have some code as shown below. Basically, I would like three boxplots to be set next to each other with no ylabels on the two "inner" plots, and I want the same x axis range on all three. However, it seems like boxplot does not respect the xlim setting. I've tried the various ways I thought would work (par, boxplot(...xlim=)) but none of them seem to work. I then tried plot.window,

Full_Name: Christian Ritter Version: 1.3.1 OS: win/nt Submission from: (NULL) (130.104.139.32) not a bug but lack of feature: outlier symbol can't be changed in bxp in bxp: ... points(rep(x, length(out)), out, col = border) ... as you can see, no pty or pch argument is used. -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- r-devel mailing list

Hi, Is this expected behavior (R-3.6.0)? dat <- cbind(x = 1:10, y = 10:1) ylab <- substitute(X[t], list(t = 2)) plot(dat, ylab = ylab) # works (correctly displays ylab) boxplot(dat, ylab = ylab) # fails boxplot(dat, ylab = as.expression(ylab)) # works Thanks & cheers, M

Full_Name: Bob O'Hara Version: 2.6.0 OS: Windows XP Submission from: (NULL) (88.112.20.250) Using horizontal=TRUE with boxplot() confuses it as to what is an x- or y-axis. At least, xlim= and ylim= are the wrong way round, log="x" (or "y") and xaxt= work as expected, I haven't looked at anything else. Some code to see if you can reproduce the bug (or discover

Hi, I have been trying draw tickmark labels along the y - axis perpendicular to the y axis while labels along the x - axis parallel to x axis while making box plot. Here is my test dataset. TData ID Ratio 1 0 7.075 2 0 7.414 3 0 7.403 4 0 7.168 5 0 6.820 6 0 7.294 7 0 7.238 8 0 7.938 9 1 7.708 10 1 8.691 11 1 8.714 12 1 8.066 13 1 8.949 14 1 8.590 15 1 8.714 16 1

----------------------- *** Disclaimer *** ----------------------- This e-mail and its contents are subject to the SA Reserve Bank's Disclaimer and Confidentiality Clause, which can be viewed at: http://www.reservebank.co.za/disclaimer Should you be unable to access the link provided, please send a blank e-mail to Disclaimer@resbank.co.za ----------------------- *** Disclaimer ***

Hi All, As a follow-on from the mail below, it is possible to have boxplots based on means and variance for more than one input, i.e., bxp(input1,input2,....) Thanks in Advance, Dermot ******** Previous Mail on this subject *********** >I have a couple more questions about boxplots. In the books I've read on >statistics (I'm not a statistics expert but just a poor engineer

I have the following time series: > class(CCasadesz2) [1] "zoo" > setmanes <- cut(time(CCasadesz2),breaks="weeks") > CCasadeswz <- aggregate(CCasadesz2,sum,by=setmanes) > class(CCasadeswz) [1] "zoo" > summary(CCasadeswz) Index CCasadeswz 2009-01-12 00:00:00: 1 Min. : 4.0 2009-01-19 00:00:00: 1 1st Qu.:

I'd like to iterate my earlier request (#7737) to change the documentation for bxp(). The argument outpch=" " needs to be replaced with outpch=NA in two places. I actually wrote this part of the documentation myself at one point, but have now realized that pch=NA and pch=" " are not the same: x <- split(rlnorm(26e4), letters) ## NA generates small file

v 2.0.1 (sooooh old!) on Win2k I think I know the answer to this but I can hope ... I have data for continuous variables (measures of residents) by a categorical variable in range (1,22), the units in which they live. I want to plot these data with a pair of boxplots one above another with same x-axis (1,22) using par(mfrow=c(2,1)) and then plotting first for the women then for the men.

I''d like to make the following changes (differences are from R1.0.1): boxplot.default() 1c1 < function (x, ..., range = 1.5, width = NULL, varwidth = FALSE, --- > function (x, ..., range = 1.5, width = NULL, varwidth = FALSE, boxwex=0.8, 37c37,38 < bxp(groups, width, varwidth = varwidth, notch = notch, --- > bxp(groups, width, varwidth = varwidth,

(as the subject says) It makes sense to add (say k) boxplots to a given plot, using the given coordinate system. Currently, the calling sequence boxplot -> boxplot.default() -> bxp() [modeled after S] doesn't allow this, since bxp() explicitly sets up the coordinate system. One way would be to add an "add = TRUE" argument to boxplot(.) and bxp(.) and then additionally

There seems to be a problem with partial matching of argument names in boxplot(), in respect of the "horizontal" argument. I don't recall seeing this issue discussed previously. My apologies if I am being redundant. (A scan of CRAN revealed that someone had experienced problems with the "horizontal" argument, but he was spelling it out in full, so that was a different