Re: [Rd] Outdated information in regex.Rd
> Mikko Korpela > on Wed, 18 Nov 2015 11:35:14 +0200 writes: > The NEWS for R-devel has the following item: >> The previously included versions of zlib, bzip2, xz and PCRE have >> been removed, so suitable external (usually system) versions are >> required (see the ‘R Installation and Administration’ manual). > Therefore I believe the following information in > 'src/library/base/man/regex.Rd' is no longer valid: >> If PCRE support was compiled from the sources within R, the PCRE >> version is 8.36 as described here. Not quite. It is still *valid* : every statement about the elements of the empty set are true, in the same sense that if (FALSE) "something or other" is never invalid, but of course, that information should still be removed because indeed, it is empty. Thank you Mikko! (and excuse the completely unnecessary pickyness ;-) __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Re: [Rd] Outdated information in regex.Rd
On 19.11.2015 12:05, Martin Maechler wrote: >> Mikko Korpela >> on Wed, 18 Nov 2015 11:35:14 +0200 writes: > > > The NEWS for R-devel has the following item: > >> The previously included versions of zlib, bzip2, xz and PCRE have > >> been removed, so suitable external (usually system) versions are > >> required (see the ‘R Installation and Administration’ manual). > > > Therefore I believe the following information in > > 'src/library/base/man/regex.Rd' is no longer valid: > > >> If PCRE support was compiled from the sources within R, the PCRE > >> version is 8.36 as described here. > > Not quite. It is still *valid* : every statement about the > elements of the empty set are true, in the same sense that > >if (FALSE) > "something or other" > > is never invalid, but of course, that information should still > be removed because indeed, it is empty. > > Thank you Mikko! > (and excuse the completely unnecessary pickyness ;-) Thanks, I see that you already edited the .Rd file. Furthermore, I accept your pickiness ;-) - Mikko __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Re: [Rd] Outdated information in regex.Rd
On 19 Nov 2015, at 10:05, Martin Maechler wrote: >> Mikko Korpela >>on Wed, 18 Nov 2015 11:35:14 +0200 writes: > >> The NEWS for R-devel has the following item: >>> The previously included versions of zlib, bzip2, xz and PCRE have >>> been removed, so suitable external (usually system) versions are >>> required (see the ‘R Installation and Administration’ manual). > >> Therefore I believe the following information in >> 'src/library/base/man/regex.Rd' is no longer valid: > >>> If PCRE support was compiled from the sources within R, the PCRE >>> version is 8.36 as described here. > > Not quite. It is still *valid* : every statement about the > elements of the empty set are true, in the same sense that > > if (FALSE) > "something or other" > > is never invalid, but of course, that information should still > be removed because indeed, it is empty. Help pages are not intended to be just about the current version of R but also recent versions, and most builds of 3.2.x will meet the condition. However, as from 3.2.0 a user can find the version of PCRE in use by extSoftVersion, and I have added a comment about that, including for 3.2.3. > > Thank you Mikko! >(and excuse the completely unnecessary pickyness ;-) > > __ > R-devel@r-project.org mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
[Rd] format.pval
Today I stumbled upon a very strange behaviour of format.pval. If all p values are below the threshold eps one gets format.pval(c(0.0002, 0.0004), eps = 0.001) ## [1] "< 0.001" "< 0.001" format.pval(0.0004, eps = 0.001) ## [1] "< 0.001" i.e., "< [eps]" as described in the manual of format.eps. Yet, if one ore more are above (and one or more below) one gets format.pval(c(1, 0.0004), eps = 0.001) ## [1] "1" "<0.001" i.e., "<[eps]", without the blank after <. One can also change this by setting digits = 1 format.pval(c(0.0002, 0.0004), eps = 0.001, digits = 1) ## [1] "<0.001" "<0.001" From the code I've learned that sep <- if (digits == 1L && nc <= 6L) "" else " " if any p values are above eps (nc = max(nchar(pv)) and sep <- if (digits == 1) "" else " " if all p values are smaller than eps. (Why) is this behaviour intended? I do not see any reason for the different outputs (nor for the arbitrary nc threshold). Yet, if it is intended it should be documented. Best, Benjamin __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
