On Wed, 20 Oct 2004, Douglas Grove wrote: > Oh crap. So sorry. This is my fault (obviously). > Prior to the new ties methods being added in 2.0.0 > I modified the source to do this myself. So looks > like I forgot: (1) that my modified code was still > being accessed default (thought I'd removed it) and > (2) that I had added in the 'decreasing' argument. > > It did seem very odd to me when I saw the undocumented > argument. > > Sorry for the this faulty bug report. > > BTW, would someone please add a 'decreasing' argument to rank. > It seems natural to have one, just like sort, and only > involves about two lines of code and a few lines of > editing to the help file.
I don't think so. At the very least, each tie method needs a change, as may the handling of NAs. Also the writing a comprehensible help page will become very complex. What is the need? Rank works for numeric vectors, and why can't you just call rank(-x) or n+1-rank(x)? The reason that does not work for sort() is that it deals with non-numeric vectors. Incidentally, we might need a `last' value for ties.method. -- Brian D. Ripley, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Professor of Applied Statistics, http://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/~ripley/ University of Oxford, Tel: +44 1865 272861 (self) 1 South Parks Road, +44 1865 272866 (PA) Oxford OX1 3TG, UK Fax: +44 1865 272595 ______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
