On Jun 6, 2011, at 20:38 , Joris Meys wrote: > On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 6:29 PM, peter dalgaard <pda...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Jun 6, 2011, at 17:15 , Joris Meys wrote: >> > **snip** >>> If nothing is found, an error is returned. If >>> anything is found, data won't be NULL, so line 20, when reached, will >>> always return FALSE. Can it be that lines 18 and 19 should be removed >>> from the function? >> >> >> I think this is a false assumption. What keeps model$call$data from being >> NULL? >> > Apart from a dataframe that is explicitly assigned NULL, I can't > imagine a case where model$call$data would be NULL. If it's not found, > the statement returns an error. If it is found and it is NULL, your > model call will have thrown an error earlier, so you won't even have > an object to plot. If you can give me one example where that code > actually makes sense, I'll be very happy. But right now, it doesn't > make any sense at all to me.
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 -- Peter Dalgaard Center for Statistics, Copenhagen Business School Solbjerg Plads 3, 2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark Phone: (+45)38153501 Email: pd....@cbs.dk Priv: pda...@gmail.com ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
