-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 15
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Changed dichotomize argument names #156
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #156 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 89.21% 89.21%
=======================================
Files 92 92
Lines 5478 5478
=======================================
Hits 4887 4887
Misses 591 591
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
1 similar comment
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #156 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 89.21% 89.21%
=======================================
Files 92 92
Lines 5478 5478
=======================================
Hits 4887 4887
Misses 591 591
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
I'm not sure that I agree that this is a good idea, for the reason I noted inline. Maybe there's a better way to improve the documentation, adding examples, etc.? |
.dichotomize.var <- function (x, i) { | ||
newcats <- dichotomize(categories(x), i) | ||
categories(x) <- newcats | ||
.dichotomize.var <- function (categories, selection) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is where I don't think categories
as an argument makes sense: when the method/function is for a variable (or is defined both for Categories
and CategoricalArrayVariable
). categories(categories)
?
|
Closes #73