From brian at braverock.com  Thu May  3 19:19:21 2012
From: brian at braverock.com (Brian G. Peterson)
Date: Thu, 03 May 2012 12:19:21 -0500
Subject: [Rd] Proposal: model.data
In-Reply-To: <CAErODj8DhfYfn7y0kwWcUfKWCRVc-MZbEBTAuW_mEfQhnwfLSg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAErODj8fUQW85O6hMzU40ACH3Nvzk7fBa2OnV=mx_MnNwqDC5A@mail.gmail.com>
	<1336063009.29163.39.camel@brian-rcg>
	<CAErODj8DhfYfn7y0kwWcUfKWCRVc-MZbEBTAuW_mEfQhnwfLSg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1336065561.29163.42.camel@brian-rcg>

On Thu, 2012-05-03 at 12:09 -0500, Paul Johnson wrote:
> Greetings:
> 
> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 11:36 AM, Brian G. Peterson <brian at braverock.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2012-05-03 at 10:51 -0500, Paul Johnson wrote:
> >> If somebody in R Core would like this and think about putting it, or
> >> something like it, into the base, then many chores involving predicted
> >> values would become much easier.
> >>
> > Why does this need to be in base?  Implement it in a package.
> >>
> > If it works, and is additive, people will use it.  Look at 'reshape' or
> > 'xts' or 'Matrix' just to name a few examples of widely used packages.
> >
> 
> I can't use it to fix termplot unless it is in base.
> 
> Or are you suggesting I create my own "termplot" replacement?

I was suggesting that you create a package that has all the features
that you think it needs.  

If you have a *patch* for termplot that would fix what you perceive to
be its problems, and not break existing code, then the usual method
would be to propose that.  It seems, though, that you are proposing more
significant changes to functionality, and it seems as though that would
run a risk of breaking backwards compatibility, which is usually a bad
idea.

Regards,

   - Brian

-- 
Brian G. Peterson
http://braverock.com/brian/
Ph: 773-459-4973
IM: bgpbraverock



[Rd] Proposal: model.data
Brian G. Peterson