From Kurt.Hornik@ci.tuwien.ac.at  Mon Aug 18 10:00:25 1997
From: Kurt.Hornik@ci.tuwien.ac.at (Kurt Hornik)
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 11:00:25 +0200
Subject: R-alpha: Re: R-beta: Bug or feature?  [+ better histograms]
In-Reply-To: <199708172342.LAA09442@stat1.stat.auckland.ac.nz>
References: <199708170921.VAA03388@stat1.stat.auckland.ac.nz>
 <9708172313.AA15474@attunga.stats.adelaide.edu.au>
 <199708172342.LAA09442@stat1.stat.auckland.ac.nz>
Message-ID: <199708180900.LAA02371@aragorn.ci.tuwien.ac.at>

>>>>> Ross Ihaka writes:

> Bill Venables writes:
>> First a bit of an explanation.  Brian Ripley and I are firmly of
>> the opinion that, to be any use in teaching at all, histograms
>> should be nonparametric estimators of the probability density
>> function.  That is, the vertical scale should be a relative
>> frequency density scale.  It seems impossible to get this in R, so
>> here is a function (+ a few extras) that does give you a "true"
>> histogram, (unless you are peverse enough to request otherwise.)

> Oh goody!  I HATE the present hist; partly because of the
> frequency/density aspect, but mainly because if I ask for 10 cells I
> expect to get 10 cells, not 7 or 35 or whatever.  I'd like propose
> that the present hist get renamed hist.old (or something similar) and
> that Bill's "truehist" become the true "hist".

I'd say, get rid of the old one ...

-k
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
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: Re: R-beta: Bug or feature? [+ better histograms]
Kurt Hornik