There is the issue of best design and the issue of dots, which I think are
separate.
As to the dots, I don't think there is any way out but to handle it yourself. The formula
parser has defined "." to mean everything in the frame that is not listed in the response.
For good or ill it allows
Greg Ridgeway gmail.com> writes:
>
> I am working on a new package, one in which the user needs to specify the
> role that different variables play in the analysis. Where I'm stumped is >
the best way to have users specify those roles.
[delete discussion of dot in formula and specials]
>
> Doe
> This seems to be a common approach in other packages. However, one of my
> testers noted that if he put formula=y~. then w, ID, and site showed up in the
> model where they weren't supposed to be.
This is the documented behaviour for '.' in a formula - it means 'everything
else in the data obj
I am working on a new package, one in which the user needs to specify the
role that different variables play in the analysis. Where I'm stumped is the
best way to have users specify those roles.
Approach #1: Separate formula for each special component
First I thought to have users specify each fo
