We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
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
Here's a thought:
PCi
RCi
mRCi
This would not make a huge difference, but it would be more strictly correct.
We could then (properly) reserve Fi for factors, if and when they are actually available via Centroid #15 or PAF #20 .
Fi
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
reorder = TRUE
here's a thought how to go about this systematically / elegantly:
qmethod()
q.fnames
q.mrot.do
rot.mat
This might need a bit of refactoring though, not quite clear whether it's worth the effort.
Open question: how to deal with flagging; should that be in the names?
Properly implementing this might also require / should be done in tandem with #277
Sorry, something went wrong.
hotfix: reverse factor naming as per aiorazabala#264 because it break…
911b62c
…s q.scoreplot (and maybe more)
See comments on github
fa26315
No branches or pull requests
Here's a thought:
PCi
RCi
(because those are actually no longer principal components, but just components)mRCi
This would not make a huge difference, but it would be more strictly correct.
We could then (properly) reserve
Fi
for factors, if and when they are actually available via Centroid #15 or PAF #20 .The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: