From hadley at rice.edu  Thu Feb  4 19:03:38 2010
From: hadley at rice.edu (Hadley Wickham)
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2010 12:03:38 -0600
Subject: [Rd] Why is there no c.factor?
In-Reply-To: <007201caa5bf$93018f50$b904adf0$@ca>
References: <f8e6ff051002040753x33282f33l78fce9f98dc29ae8@mail.gmail.com> 
	<alpine.LRH.2.01.1002040906470.14023@hymn34.u.washington.edu> 
	<007201caa5bf$93018f50$b904adf0$@ca>
Message-ID: <f8e6ff051002041003v41927bd4s56b8a8d42cc63953@mail.gmail.com>

> I'd propose the following: If the sets of levels of all arguments are the
> same, then c.factor() would return a factor with the common set of levels;
> if the sets of levels differ, then, as Hadley suggests, the level-set of the
> result would be the union of sets of levels of the arguments, but a warning
> would be issued.

I like this compromise (as long as there was an argument to suppress
the warning)

Hadley


-- 
http://had.co.nz/



[Rd] Why is there no c.factor?
Hadley Wickham