On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Roger Bivand <roger.biv...@nhh.no> wrote: > On Fri, 28 May 2010, Etienne Bellemare Racine wrote: > >> I taught I could add my two cents. >>> >>> Nice suggestion! >> >> I agree ! > > No. Only for SpatialPointDataFrame objects, which is what it does already. > Please, understand that str() is a *much* better choice in effectively all > cases where summary() isn't used. For the Spatial* objects, set a > max.level=2 or similar, and you can *see* what is in it. The proposed > print() method for a big multiband raster will also run away with you. Do > str(), not print()!!!
I'm not sure what you're saying 'No' to here, Roger. Neither str(xx) nor summary(xx) present the object as a data frame. Conceptually its a data frame where one of the columns is a geometry, and seeing it print as such is a good thing (imho). I'd like to never have to use x...@data again! I'm not sure trying to truncate the coordinates for nice formatting is a good idea though, but some indication when printing a Spatial*DataFrame that its a dataframe with geometries seems a good idea. Barry _______________________________________________ R-sig-Geo mailing list R-sig-Geo@stat.math.ethz.ch https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-geo
