Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago
Hi Rob,
I've revised plotBubbles along the lines you suggested. I also found a bug for
one of the options I personally never used. I've also added a new logical
argument called 'prettyaxis' that attempts to make the axis labelling look a
little less cluttered. If you get a chance could you try the function out on
whatever was causing you grief before. Thanks.
Ciao for now, Rowan (2010-07-12)
Original comment by rowan.ha...@dfo-mpo.gc.ca
on 19 Jul 2010 at 9:05
Attachments:
(Possibly) more plotBubbles issues.
plotBubbles allows a variety of options for what to do with the input data,
namely rpro, cpro, rres, cres. All are FALSE by default according to the UG.
Thus, if the matrix of age proportions is submitted to plotBubbles for
plotting, with no amendments required, I assumed that these default settings
would pass the matrix through without modification.
In fact, the value returned by plotBubbles (z0 in the function) appears to be
as though cpro was TRUE. I changed it to zz and got the desired result but
have not tested it extensively for other options. I assumed that plotBubbles
should return a matrix corresponding to the settings of rpro, cpro, rres, and
cres. I'm not even sure that zz was the correct choice in general.
I think that plotBubbles should have additional documenation in the UG to
provide the details of VALUE (i.e, what is returned) and the intended behavior.
This could be a particularly nasty one if people use plotBubbles to generate
the proportions at age for a catch-at-age model, for example.
Thoughts? Rob (2010-07-19)
Original comment by rowan.ha...@dfo-mpo.gc.ca
on 19 Jul 2010 at 9:06
Rowan points out to me that plotBubbles returns the matrix values raised to the
pwr ( i.e., the symbol expansion value )
This is fine, but the documentation should be revised to reflect the value
returned by .plotBubbles and maybe a cautionary note about setting pwr to 1 if
you want the actual values.
I mistakenly assumed that pwr would only be a plotting side effect. My bad.
R. (2010-07-19)
Original comment by rowan.ha...@dfo-mpo.gc.ca
on 19 Jul 2010 at 11:01
RH: The code above was incorporated some time ago.
Original comment by rowan.ha...@dfo-mpo.gc.ca
on 9 Sep 2011 at 7:21
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
rowan.ha...@dfo-mpo.gc.ca
on 19 Jul 2010 at 9:03