From ggrothendieck at gmail.com  Sun Mar  9 18:23:44 2008
From: ggrothendieck at gmail.com (Gabor Grothendieck)
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2008 13:23:44 -0400
Subject: [Rd] [patch] add=TRUE in plot.default()
In-Reply-To: <20080309164639.GF23544@econ.upenn.edu>
References: <20080309031119.GC23544@econ.upenn.edu>
	<47D40C41.1000202@stats.uwo.ca>
	<20080309164639.GF23544@econ.upenn.edu>
Message-ID: <971536df0803091023v24c56a45xb209cfd74be33d2c@mail.gmail.com>

I agree with Andrew's viewpoint.  These changes would make
R easier to use.

On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 12:46 PM, Andrew Clausen <clausen at econ.upenn.edu> wrote:
> Hi Duncan,
>
> On Sun, Mar 09, 2008 at 12:11:45PM -0400, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
> > It has never been claimed that it would work, and as far as I can see,
> > it doesn't make anything easier:  the last line could be replaced by
> >
> > lines(X, f(X), col="red")
> >
> > for more clarity from less typing.  So why would you want add=TRUE in
> > plot.default?
>
> I don't like lines() because it ONLY allows you to add to plots.  I could
> send a patch for that too...
>
> But I also like how plot() is polymorphic.  It's nice how you can do some
> computation -- a regression, a histogram or whatever, and then just call plot()
> on it, and you have a nice graphical representation of it.  But why stop
> there... wouldn't it be nice if you could stack them on top of each other?
> It's often useful to compare things by putting them on top of each other.
> (Are 2 regression lines the same or similar?  Are two utility functions the
> same? etc.)
>
> Cheers,
> Andrew
>
>
> ______________________________________________
> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>



[Rd] [patch] add=TRUE in plot.default()
Gabor Grothendieck