Re: [R] Inconsistence in specifying action for missing data
Martin Maechler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Duncan == Duncan Murdoch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
on Sat, 03 Sep 2005 11:40:18 -0400 writes:
Duncan John Sorkin wrote:
A question for R (and perhaps S and SPlus) historians.
Does anyone know the reason for the inconsistency in the
way that the action that should be taken when data are
missing is specified? There are several variants,
na.action, na.omit, T, TRUE, etc. I know that a foolish
consistency is the hobgoblin of a small mind, but
consistency can make things easier.
My question is not meant as a complaint. I very much
admire the R development team. I simply am curious.
Duncan R and S have been developed by lots of people, over
Duncan a long time. I think that's it.
yes, but there's a bit more to it.
First, the question was wrong (don't you just hate such an answer?):
A more interesting question would have asked why there was
'na.rm = {TRUE, FALSE}'
on one hand and
'na.action = {na.omit, na.replace, .}'
on the other hand,
since only these two appear as function *arguments*
{at least in `decent' S and R functions}.
So cor() is indecent (with its use= argument)? ;-)
--
O__ Peter Dalgaard Øster Farimagsgade 5, Entr.B
c/ /'_ --- Dept. of Biostatistics PO Box 2099, 1014 Cph. K
(*) \(*) -- University of Copenhagen Denmark Ph: (+45) 35327918
~~ - ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) FAX: (+45) 35327907
__
R-help@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide! http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
Re: [R] Inconsistence in specifying action for missing data
On Sat, 3 Sep 2005, John Sorkin wrote: A question for R (and perhaps S and SPlus) historians. Does anyone know the reason for the inconsistency in the way that the action that should be taken when data are missing is specified? There are several variants, na.action, na.omit, T, TRUE, etc. I know that a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of a small mind, but consistency can make things easier. There's actually a little more consistency than first appears. There are two most common ways to refer to missingness, na.rm and na.action. Usually na.rm has default TRUE (using T is a bug) and removes NAs from one vector at a time. na.action usually has default na.omit() and works on whole data frames, eg na.omit and na.exclude do casewise deletion if any variable is NA. These aren't completely uniform, and that is simply historical. I think there was once an attempt to make na.fail() the default na.action, but there was too much resistance to change. -thomas __ R-help@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide! http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
Re: [R] Inconsistence in specifying action for missing data
John Sorkin wrote: A question for R (and perhaps S and SPlus) historians. Does anyone know the reason for the inconsistency in the way that the action that should be taken when data are missing is specified? There are several variants, na.action, na.omit, T, TRUE, etc. I know that a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of a small mind, but consistency can make things easier. My question is not meant as a complaint. I very much admire the R development team. I simply am curious. R and S have been developed by lots of people, over a long time. I think that's it. Duncan Murdoch __ R-help@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide! http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
Re: [R] Inconsistence in specifying action for missing data
Duncan == Duncan Murdoch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
on Sat, 03 Sep 2005 11:40:18 -0400 writes:
Duncan John Sorkin wrote:
A question for R (and perhaps S and SPlus) historians.
Does anyone know the reason for the inconsistency in the
way that the action that should be taken when data are
missing is specified? There are several variants,
na.action, na.omit, T, TRUE, etc. I know that a foolish
consistency is the hobgoblin of a small mind, but
consistency can make things easier.
My question is not meant as a complaint. I very much
admire the R development team. I simply am curious.
Duncan R and S have been developed by lots of people, over
Duncan a long time. I think that's it.
yes, but there's a bit more to it.
First, the question was wrong (don't you just hate such an answer?):
A more interesting question would have asked why there was
'na.rm = {TRUE, FALSE}'
on one hand and
'na.action = {na.omit, na.replace, .}'
on the other hand,
since only these two appear as function *arguments*
{at least in `decent' S and R functions}.
There, the answer has at least two parts:
- First, for some functionalities, na.rm = TRUE/FALSE is the
only thing that makes sense, so why should you have to use
something more complicated?
- IIRC, 'na.rm' has been much earlier (S version 2),
than 'na.action' (S version 3; with na.replace much later IIRC);
na.action was really becoming relevant only when thinking
about model fitting and non-trivial missing value treatment.
Martin Maechler, ETH Zurich
__
R-help@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide! http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
