Support for interactions and explicit nesting in blocking variables #197
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #197 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 93.55% 93.54% -0.01%
==========================================
Files 18 18
Lines 1179 1193 +14
==========================================
+ Hits 1103 1116 +13
- Misses 76 77 +1
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
|
Allowing a single term to expand into multiple terms during |
|
@dmbates I think this is good for merge if you're okay with it. |
dmbates
approved these changes
Oct 1, 2019
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Closes #149 .
Added functionality:
(1|batch&cask)(equivalent to R(1|batch:cask)).(1|batch/cask)via expansion to outer and nested blocks(1|batch) + (1|batch&cask)I'm not sure that adding the nesting syntax is truly desirable (I find it horribly confusing and it emphasizes an outdated computational perspective), but it's relatively low hanging fruit once we have the interactions in blocking variables. It's also convenient to support a wider range of the formulas
lme4supports for some of the work with RCall and JuliaCall.Alternatively, we could just not support this syntax and add some documentation discussing how to prepare your data to use existing syntax.