From ggrothendieck at gmail.com  Mon Mar 10 00:59:47 2008
From: ggrothendieck at gmail.com (Gabor Grothendieck)
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2008 19:59:47 -0400
Subject: [Rd] [patch] add=TRUE in plot.default()
In-Reply-To: <f8e6ff050803091651q19aea05bg36126f7a562fef88@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20080309031119.GC23544@econ.upenn.edu>
	<47D40C41.1000202@stats.uwo.ca>
	<20080309164639.GF23544@econ.upenn.edu> <47D442B8.10501@stats.uwo.ca>
	<20080309215833.GH23544@econ.upenn.edu>
	<f8e6ff050803091527j1e09dbe6qf298ef9e131e27ba@mail.gmail.com>
	<971536df0803091547m526c144s47647f10f725def4@mail.gmail.com>
	<f8e6ff050803091651q19aea05bg36126f7a562fef88@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <971536df0803091659r566baafbr831aaf7f35465c94@mail.gmail.com>

Its not a matter of desirable or not -- its a matter that its a different point.

The par(new= ) to get an old graph is completely confusing
and its annoying that one has to suddenly switch to lines and points
and cannot consistently use plot.

That remains true whether or not there is auto expansion.

On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 7:51 PM, hadley wickham <h.wickham at gmail.com> wrote:
> >  > But what about when the new data is outside the range of the current
> >  > plot?
> >
> >  plot/lines/points already works that way so this is just an interface issue.
>
> That may be the way it is, but I don't see how you could argue that
> it's desirable behaviour.
>
>
> Hadley
>
>
> --
> http://had.co.nz/
>



[Rd] [patch] add=TRUE in plot.default()
Gabor Grothendieck