Preliminary version of ts package

[Paul Gilbert]

PG>> I think in general this has been agreed to several times, but also
in
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
March: the
BDR>end of the Oxford academic year precipitated this. And my reading of
that
BDR>correspondence is _not_ that there was agreement to follow all of
S's
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.

Paul



-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
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
_._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._