From jfox at mcmaster.ca  Mon Sep 19 15:17:44 2005
From: jfox at mcmaster.ca (John Fox)
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 09:17:44 -0400
Subject: [Rd] automatically adding smooth to
	plot:options("plot.add.smooth")
In-Reply-To: <432EB345.801@stats.uwo.ca>
Message-ID: <20050919131743.EMPT25800.tomts13-srv.bellnexxia.net@JohnDesktop8300>

Dear Duncan and Martin,


> -----Original Message-----
> From: r-devel-bounces at r-project.org 
> [mailto:r-devel-bounces at r-project.org] On Behalf Of Duncan Murdoch
> Sent: Monday, September 19, 2005 7:47 AM
> To: Martin Maechler
> Cc: Werner Stahel; R-devel at stat.math.ethz.ch
> Subject: Re: [Rd] automatically adding smooth to 
> plot:options("plot.add.smooth")
> 
> On 9/19/2005 8:18 AM, Martin Maechler wrote:
> > I've changed the subject in the hope some more people would 
> voice an 
> > opinion...
> > 
> >>>>>> "MM" == Martin Maechler <maechler at stat.math.ethz.ch>
> >>>>>>     on Sat, 17 Sep 2005 17:29:20 +0200 writes:
> > 
> >>>>>> "Wst" == Werner Stahel <stahel at stat.math.ethz.ch>
> >>>>>>     on Fri, 16 Sep 2005 09:37:02 +0200 writes:
> > 
> > 
> >     Wst> ........................
> >     Wst> ........................
> >     Wst> ........................
> > 
> >     Wst> For most plots, I like to see a smoother along with the
> >     Wst> points.  I suggest to add the option to include
> >     Wst> smoothers, not only as an argument to plot.lm, but even
> >     Wst> as an option().  I have heared of the intense
> >     Wst> discussions about options().  With Martin, we arrived
> >     Wst> at the conclusion that options() should never influence
> >     Wst> calculations and results, but is suitable to adjust
> >     Wst> outputs (numerical: digits=, graphical: smooth=) to the
> >     Wst> user's taste.
> > 
> >     MM> {and John Fox agreed, `in general'}
> > 
> >     MM> That could be a possibility, for 2.2.0 only applied to
> >     MM> plot.lm() in any case, where plot.lm() would get a new
> >     MM> argument
> > 
> >     MM>     add.smooth = getOption("plot.add.smooth")
> > 
> >     MM> What do people think about the name?  it would ``stick
> >     MM> with us'' -- so we better choose it well..
> > 
> > No reaction so far.... 
> > 
> > 
> > I've realized that I can introduce this very easily into
> > plot.lm():
> > 
> > Instead of the former argument    
> > 
> > 	 panel = points
> > 
> > I use the new ones
> > 
> > 	 panel = if(add.smooth) panel.smooth else points,
> > 
> >          add.smooth = isTRUE(getOption("plot.add.smooth")),
> > 
> > - - -
> > 
> > Now I even propose to have
> >       
> > 	options(add.smooth = TRUE)
> > 
> > as a new default.....
> > 
> > Do I get a reaction now?
> 
> I like the name "add.smooth" (as used at the bottom) better 
> than "plot.add.smooth" (as used a few lines up).
> 
> With that choice, I think it's a good idea.
> 
> Duncan Murdoch

I agree.

Regards,
 John



[Rd] automatically adding smooth to plot:options("plot.add.smooth")
John Fox