[Rd] RFC: type conversion in read.table
31 Aug 2001 05:20:33 -0700
>>>>> "BDR" == Brian D Ripley <Prof> writes:
>> I would also be happier if we did not refer to the variables
>> explicitly as `columns'. (This sounds a bit stupid from the
>> person who wrote write.table and introduced arguments
>> `row.names' and `col.names'. Although, at least one of these
>> was modelled after an existing function). E.g. something like
>> read.table(......, caseNames, varNames, varClasses, .....)
>> would be nice ...
BDR> The problem is that what is being referred to *is* columns
BDR> and not variables. If you have row names on the file, the
BDR> numbering is different. So it matters to use sufficiently
BDR> precise terminology.
I would tend to agree with Brian. To me, caseNames / varNames
sounds a rather bit arrogant, since there are a number of other
"formats" (contingency tables come to mind) for which read.table is
one possible way for slurping in the data prior to munging it, though
I guess one could argue that this is an abuse of tools.
A.J. Rossini Rsrch. Asst. Prof. of Biostatistics
U. of Washington Biostatistics firstname.lastname@example.org
FHCRC/SCHARP/HIV Vaccine Trials Net email@example.com
-------- (wednesday/friday is unknown) --------
FHCRC: M-Tu : 206-667-7025 (fax=4812)|Voicemail is pretty sketchy/use Email
UW: Th : 206-543-1044 (fax=3286)|Change last 4 digits of phone to FAX
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