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? # for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “#”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? # to your account
API-wise I think it would make sense to add a estimate_contrasts() method to apply to estimate_slopes() outputs
estimate_contrasts()
estimate_slopes()
estimate_slopes(m) |> estimate_contrasts()
Instead of complexifying the estimate_slopes() itself
Originally posted by @DominiqueMakowski in #301 (comment)
Yes, we would still not recompute from scratch
I reckon a pipe workflow would just be syntactic sugar for:
estimate_contrasts.estimate_means <- function(x) { model <- extract_model(x) # recompute contrasts estimate_contrasts(model, ...) }
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Make functions pipe-friendly
afdd732
Fixes #304
strengejacke
Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.
API-wise I think it would make sense to add a
estimate_contrasts()
method to apply toestimate_slopes()
outputsestimate_slopes(m) |> estimate_contrasts()
Instead of complexifying the estimate_slopes() itself
Originally posted by @DominiqueMakowski in #301 (comment)
Yes, we would still not recompute from scratch
I reckon a pipe workflow would just be syntactic sugar for:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: