{"action":"created","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/lme4/lme4/issues/272","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/lme4/lme4/issues/272/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/lme4/lme4/issues/272/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/lme4/lme4/issues/272/events","html_url":"https://github.com/lme4/lme4/issues/272","id":55705264,"number":272,"title":"nobars when the only fixed effect is the intercept","user":{"login":"pitakakariki","id":1023705,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1023705?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/pitakakariki","html_url":"https://github.com/pitakakariki","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/pitakakariki/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/pitakakariki/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/pitakakariki/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/pitakakariki/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/pitakakariki/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/pitakakariki/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/pitakakariki/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/pitakakariki/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/pitakakariki/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[],"state":"open","locked":false,"assignee":null,"milestone":null,"comments":8,"created_at":"2015-01-28T02:23:08Z","updated_at":"2015-04-23T06:46:13Z","closed_at":null,"body":"Would it be better for nobars to return a `~ 1` RHS when there are no fixed effects specified?\r\n\r\nCurrent behaviour:\r\n\r\n    nobars(y ~ (1|g))\r\n    # y\r\n\r\nProposed:\r\n\r\n    nobars(y~(1|g))\r\n    # y ~ 1\r\n\r\nThis seems to be the desired behaviour, given that `nobars` is usually called with the idiom:\r\n\r\n    if(is.null(nb <- nobars(RHSForm(form)))) 1 else nb"},"comment":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/lme4/lme4/issues/comments/95463437","html_url":"https://github.com/lme4/lme4/issues/272#issuecomment-95463437","issue_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/lme4/lme4/issues/272","id":95463437,"user":{"login":"mmaechler","id":995722,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/995722?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/mmaechler","html_url":"https://github.com/mmaechler","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/mmaechler/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/mmaechler/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/mmaechler/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/mmaechler/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/mmaechler/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/mmaechler/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/mmaechler/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/mmaechler/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/mmaechler/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"created_at":"2015-04-23T06:46:13Z","updated_at":"2015-04-23T06:46:13Z","body":"aargh...  I assume you are right: If we ourselves can no longer call the new `nobars()`  because our code has relied on the old behaviour,  we have a strong back compatibility problem.  That's not good.\r\nOTOH, for progress, we'd want the new behavior to work without  explicitly using the new argument.\r\n\r\nCan we add \r\n1) the new argument\r\n2) make the new behavior the default\r\n3) give a -- once per session only -- warning when the argument is missing and the new behavior triggers ... so people expecting NULL no longer get it, but also get a warning helping them to notice the case ...\r\n"}}