From jorismeys at gmail.com  Mon Jun  6 21:30:29 2011
From: jorismeys at gmail.com (Joris Meys)
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2011 21:30:29 +0200
Subject: [Rd] Possible bug in termplot function (stats package) ?
In-Reply-To: <94E402C0-10C7-4770-9AB0-B1E33A1779E1@gmail.com>
References: <BANLkTikkDxdR_1+TJNX5LMkr23spvOJ4+A@mail.gmail.com>
	<9B2E15B5-AE4F-4849-96D5-A5DE8896DC80@gmail.com>
	<BANLkTi=uHfZ62TSfLa-a+E-n9RU47_vS5A@mail.gmail.com>
	<94E402C0-10C7-4770-9AB0-B1E33A1779E1@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=3HyRwGXTEp2mTv=kZS-oy64ctTw@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 9:15 PM, peter dalgaard <pdalgd at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'd say that the burden of proof is really on your side, but how hard can it be:
>
>> x <- 1:10
>> y <- rnorm(10)
>> m <- lm(y~x)
>> m$call
> lm(formula = y ~ x)
>> m$call$data
> NULL
>
I see... indeed, thx for the answer and sorry for my stupidity. Should
have thought about that case. Still, I wonder why it is necessary to
go look for the data in a calling environment if it should be
contained in the model frame of the fitted object. Or am I again wrong
in assuming that's always the case?

Cheers
Joris



-- 
Joris Meys
Statistical consultant

Ghent University
Faculty of Bioscience Engineering
Department of Applied mathematics, biometrics and process control

tel : +32 9 264 59 87
Joris.Meys at Ugent.be
-------------------------------
Disclaimer : http://helpdesk.ugent.be/e-maildisclaimer.php



[Rd] Possible bug in termplot function (stats package) ?
Joris Meys