Hi, Berwin, good to hear from you, and thanks for the detailed comments and
suggestion.
Actually, my current experimental code works in the way that you suggest,
calling directly lm.fit and glm.fit. What I am trying to develop is an
“improved” version of the code for distribution to other
G'day Adelchi,
hope all is well with you.
On Thu, 4 May 2023 10:34:00 +0200
Adelchi Azzalini via R-help wrote:
> Thanks, Duncan. What you indicate is surely the ideal route.
> Unfortunately, in my case this is not feasible, because the
> construction of xf and the update call are within an
On 04/05/2023 4:34 a.m., Adelchi Azzalini wrote:
On 4 May 2023, at 10:26, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
On 04/05/2023 4:05 a.m., Adelchi Azzalini via R-help wrote:
Hi. There must be something about the use of update() which I do not grasp,
as the next exercise indicates.
Suppose that obj is an
> On 4 May 2023, at 10:26, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
>
> On 04/05/2023 4:05 a.m., Adelchi Azzalini via R-help wrote:
>> Hi. There must be something about the use of update() which I do not grasp,
>> as the next exercise indicates.
>> Suppose that obj is an object returned by a call to lm() or
Hi. There must be something about the use of update() which I do not grasp,
as the next exercise indicates.
Suppose that obj is an object returned by a call to lm() or glm().
Next, a new variable xf is constructed using the same dataframe used
for producing obj. Then
obj$data <- cbind(obj$data,
5 matches
Mail list logo
