From pgilbert@bank-banque-canada.ca  Wed Jul 28 17:04:16 1999
From: pgilbert@bank-banque-canada.ca (Paul Gilbert)
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 12:04:16 -0400
Subject: Preliminary version of ts package
References: <Pine.GSO.4.05.9907272252270.11135-100000@auk.stats>
Message-ID: <379F29FE.B16ACFC8@bank-banque-canada.ca>

PG>> Yes, hopefully there will be lots of improvements. But I think
everyone has
PG>> agreed that we want S compatibility for the default behavior, so
if  "ts" is...

BDR>Not in my time with R: can you give me the reference to that
agreement,
BDR>please. (If it is a generic comment, there are many, many
exceptions.)

I think in general this has been agreed to several times, but also in
the discussion of Adrian Trapletti tseries library, which seemed to
initiate the ts library effort, there was general agreement on this
point. (See r-devel messages July 15 Re: tseries).

I am not trying to defend S's poor default treatment of time series. We
need other better time series classes, and perhaps ts should do that. In
fact, perhaps R does not even need a default time series representation
and methods for it.

What is important is that, if there is a time series default it should
be consistent with S. So, either ts should be consistent with S or it
should not be the default.

Paul Gilbert

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


Preliminary version of ts package
Paul Gilbert