From tlumley@u.washington.edu  Mon Aug  5 16:36:28 2002
From: tlumley@u.washington.edu (Thomas Lumley)
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 08:36:28 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: offset arg (was Re: [R] variable scope)
In-Reply-To: <x23ctwi3jo.fsf@biostat.ku.dk>
Message-ID: <Pine.A41.4.44.0208050835300.101274-100000@homer11.u.washington.edu>

On 3 Aug 2002, Peter Dalgaard BSA wrote:

> ripley@stats.ox.ac.uk writes:
>
> > On 3 Aug 2002, Peter Dalgaard BSA wrote:
> >
> > > Another example that has come back to haunt us several times is
> > > lm(...,data=d,offset=foo). The problem is that we want "foo" to be
> > > found inside "d" if present, but call-by-value semantics imply that it
> > > is an object in the caller's scope. You really ought to pass the name
> > > "foo" (or maybe better: quote(foo), or a formula ~foo).
> >
> > Should we not just deprecate the offset argument in lm and glm?  Using the
> > offset() function in the formula works as one would expect (at least if
> > one remembers the R rules which start at the formula's environment).
>
> That's a definite possibility, but what about subset (the argument,
> not the function) and weights?
>
> Not to mention pch and col in plot.formula et al. where vectorization
> led to some unexpected awkwardness.

Though at least for the graphical parameters I think with() gives a good
solution.

	-thomas

-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
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
_._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._


offset arg (was Re: [R] variable scope)
Thomas Lumley