>>>>> "Greg" == Warnes, Gregory R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>> on Wed, 21 Jan 2004 01:48:15 -0500 writes:
Greg> As I've mentioned a number of times. I find it very
Greg> useful to have lowess() become a generic function so
Greg> that a lowess.formula() can be defined.
Greg> Below is a patch that makes both changes, as well as
Greg> updating the corresponding help documentation.
I think most times you mentioned this, Brian told you that
"loess" was there and was generic and was to be recommended over
lowess anyway.
Hence I think we should hear reasons why lowess is to be
preferred to loess in some cases.
[and I think I may well support your argument; I've forgotten
which reasons I thought to have in the past when deciding for
lowess (against loess).]
*Not* making lowess generic is one way to recommend loess ;-)
Martin
______________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
https://www.stat.math.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
