From p.dalgaard@biostat.ku.dk  Tue Dec  2 18:21:47 1997
From: p.dalgaard@biostat.ku.dk (Peter Dalgaard BSA)
Date: 02 Dec 1997 19:21:47 +0100
Subject: R-alpha: two-sided to one-sided formula
In-Reply-To: Douglas Bates's message of Tue, 2 Dec 1997 11:55:49 -0600 (CST)
References: <m0xcwY1-000hhXC@franz.stat.wisc.edu>
Message-ID: <x267p7mwqs.fsf@blueberry.kubism.ku.dk>

Douglas Bates <bates@stat.wisc.edu> writes:

> In general it would not be a good idea to propagate the formula class
> to subsets but it does make sense in this case.  We can get around it
> by replacing ttt[-2] by do.call("~", ttt[-(1:2)]) I suppose.  Any
> opinions on whether ttt[-2] should still be a formula?

Hum. tt[-i] is a well-defined formula iff (i != 1). Somehow, I dislike
the idea of properties depending on the value of a parameter, so I'm
inclined to say no. BTW,

eval(as.call(ttt[-2]))

also works. And one would *think* that formula(as.call(ttt[-2])) did
too, but typeof(as.call(...))==language and !=call (is this weird or
not?), so formula.default protests.

-- 
   O__  ---- Peter Dalgaard             Blegdamsvej 3  
  c/ /'_ --- Dept. of Biostatistics     2200 Cph. N   
 (*) \(*) -- University of Copenhagen   Denmark      Ph: (+45) 35327918
~~~~~~~~~~ - (p.dalgaard@biostat.ku.dk)             FAX: (+45) 35327907

-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
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: two-sided to one-sided formula
Peter Dalgaard BSA