Hi All,
As per the discussion today on R-Help:
https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-help/2017-July/448132.html
I am attaching a proposed patch for poly.Rd to provide clarifying wording
relative to naming the 'degree' argument explicitly, in the case where the 'x'
argument is a matrix, rather than a vector.
This is based upon the svn trunk version of poly.Rd.
Thanks for your consideration.
Regards,
Marc Schwartz
--- polyOLD.Rd 2017-07-13 14:58:16.000000000 -0500
+++ poly.Rd 2017-07-13 14:59:24.000000000 -0500
@@ -26,7 +26,8 @@
polynomial. \code{x} can also be a matrix. Missing values are not
allowed in \code{x}.}
\item{degree}{the degree of the polynomial. Must be less than the
- number of unique points when \code{raw} is false, as by default.}
+ number of unique points when \code{raw} is false, as by default.
+ See \sQuote{Details} below.}
\item{coefs}{for prediction, coefficients from a previous fit.}
\item{raw}{if true, use raw and not orthogonal polynomials.}
\item{simple}{logical indicating if a simple matrix (with no further
@@ -54,8 +55,9 @@
\details{
Although formally \code{degree} should be named (as it follows
\code{\dots}), an unnamed second argument of length 1 will be
- interpreted as the degree, such that \code{poly(x, 3)} can be used in
- formulas.
+ interpreted as the degree, only if \code{x} is a vector,
+ such that \code{poly(x, 3)} can be used in formulas. If \code{x} is
+ a matrix, \code{degree} must be named.
The orthogonal polynomial is summarized by the coefficients, which can
be used to evaluate it via the three-term recursion given in Kennedy
______________________________________________
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
