> -----Original Message-----
> From: Douglas Bates [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 12:16 PM
[...]
> Yes. It's the old "standard non-standard evaluation" problem. The
> model.frame function is (and has to be) very peculiar in the way
> that it determines the value of variable names without local
> bindings. That's the non-standard evaluation part. Because it is
> difficult to get this right, it helps if it only needs to be done in
> one place so we have what Thomas Lumley described as a "standard
> non-standard evaluation" function in the current model.frame function.
>
> However, model.frame expects to have only one argument called
> "formula" (the first argument) containing a formula that will need to
> be evaluated in the frame. The model fitting functions in the nlme
> package can have formulas in multiple arguments. Arranging for the
> proper call to model.frame to be evaluated is not easy.
>
> A workaround is to use subset on the data frame passed as an argument
>
> prgls <- function(name){ gls( log10(Y)~(cond-1)+(cond-1):t
> ,subset(pr,subject==name))}
Why don't we extend model.frame to allow for multiple 'formula-like'
arguments? Perhaps by adding an argument that allows the call to specify
which paramters are 'formula-like'?
-G
LEGAL NOTICE\ Unless expressly stated otherwise, this messag...{{dropped}}
______________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
https://www.stat.math.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
