From hadley at rice.edu  Fri Feb  5 15:43:44 2010
From: hadley at rice.edu (Hadley Wickham)
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 08:43:44 -0600
Subject: [Rd] Why is there no c.factor?
In-Reply-To: <f8e6ff051002041003v41927bd4s56b8a8d42cc63953@mail.gmail.com>
References: <f8e6ff051002040753x33282f33l78fce9f98dc29ae8@mail.gmail.com> 
	<alpine.LRH.2.01.1002040906470.14023@hymn34.u.washington.edu> 
	<007201caa5bf$93018f50$b904adf0$@ca>
	<f8e6ff051002041003v41927bd4s56b8a8d42cc63953@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f8e6ff051002050643gf9335cfia7d39f9c0c7f3583@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 12:03 PM, Hadley Wickham <hadley at rice.edu> wrote:
>> 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)

If I provided code to do this, along with the warnings for ordered
factors and using the optimisation suggested by Matthew, is there any
member of R core would be interested in sponsoring it?

Hadley

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



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