From thomas@biostat.washington.edu  Tue Mar 21 16:33:51 2000
From: thomas@biostat.washington.edu (Thomas Lumley)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 08:33:51 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Rd] par help wrong: xlog & ylog (PR#497)
In-Reply-To: <200003211605.RAA00840@pubhealth.ku.dk>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.21.0003210829030.14323-100000@mail.biostat.washington.edu>

On Tue, 21 Mar 2000 maechler@stat.math.ethz.ch wrote:

> You might have a point:  We could (should we?) consider requiring a 
> "log =" argument for *ALL* plot methods, and then have it 
> documented and possibly even among the listed arguements (the "non ..." ones)
> of the generic  plot.
> 
> Opinions?
> 

Aaagh! No!  What about plots that intrinsically contain zero x or y
values, such as mortality plots (ie upside-down survival plots) or
Receiver Operating Characteristic curves?

Going further, some plot methods have a ... option but don't pass it to
plot. If the method uses plot to set up axes and then calls points() or
lines() to handle the actual drawing it may make sense to pass ... to
points() or lines().  These functions don't understand log=, so it would
be necessary to have an explicit log= option for the method, even if it
was completely inappropriate.

	-thomas

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


[Rd] par help wrong: xlog & ylog (PR#497)
Thomas Lumley