From thomas@biostat.washington.edu  Tue Aug 12 02:04:28 1997
From: thomas@biostat.washington.edu (Thomas Lumley)
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 18:04:28 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: R-alpha: Matrix Class
In-Reply-To: <199708120021.MAA16813@stat1.stat.auckland.ac.nz>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.95.970811174844.739A-100000@zen>

On Tue, 12 Aug 1997, Ross Ihaka wrote:

> The have been a few prods to create an S-like matrix class for R.  A
> major reason for having a matrix class seems to be that people get
> bitten by the default behavior of the drop= parameter to "[".  That
> being the case does it make sense to change the semantics of "["
> rather than introducing a new class?

I think changing the semantics is preferable, in part because it fixes the
drop problem automatically, rather than requiring everyone to use a new
feature.  Creating a Matrix class would not fix the array problem for
arrays of dimension 3 or more, either.

However, a Matrix library might be a nice place to put matrix features
that not everyone needs. This helps keep the size of R down.  Libraries
that can be loaded and unloaded seem like the ideal place to put a whole
lot of things, rather than taking the S-PLUS approach of bundling gam and
trees and nlme and everything else together.  


Thomas Lumley
-----------------------------------------------------+------
Biostatistics		: "Never attribute to malice what  :
Uni of Washington	:  can be adequately explained by  :
Box 357232		:  incompetence" - Hanlon's Razor  :
Seattle WA 98195-7232	:				   :
------------------------------------------------------------

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
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
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-


R-alpha: Matrix Class
Thomas Lumley