From maechler at stat.math.ethz.ch  Wed Jan 21 09:48:56 2004
From: maechler at stat.math.ethz.ch (Martin Maechler)
Date: Wed Jan 21 09:47:20 2004
Subject: [Rd] Please make lowess() generic
In-Reply-To: <D7A3CFD7825BD6119B880002A58F06C20680AD81@groexmb02.pfizer.com>
References: <D7A3CFD7825BD6119B880002A58F06C20680AD81@groexmb02.pfizer.com>
Message-ID: <16398.15608.479817.957147@gargle.gargle.HOWL>

>>>>> "Greg" == Warnes, Gregory R <gregory_r_warnes@groton.pfizer.com>
>>>>>     on Wed, 21 Jan 2004 01:48:15 -0500 writes:

    Greg> As I've mentioned a number of times.  I find it very
    Greg> useful to have lowess() become a generic function so
    Greg> that a lowess.formula() can be defined.

    Greg> Below is a patch that makes both changes, as well as
    Greg> updating the corresponding help documentation.

I think most times you mentioned this, Brian told you that 
"loess" was there and was generic and was to be recommended over
lowess anyway.

Hence I think we should hear reasons why lowess is to be
preferred to loess in some cases.
[and I think I may well support your argument; I've forgotten
 which reasons I thought to have in the past when deciding for
 lowess (against loess).]

*Not* making lowess generic is one way to recommend loess ;-)

Martin


[Rd] Please make lowess() generic
Martin Maechler