[Rd] 00Index and white space: specify in doc more than 1 space needed?
Dear R-devel list I noticed while checking a package that the demo/00Index file needs more than one space between the name and a description, a requirement which is not very clear from reading the manual: "[give a] name and a description separated by white space" I realized this point had been already raised a few years ago, but remained unanswered. Maybe this point is still valid and the documentation could be updated? https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-devel/2007-September/046811.html Best regards Matthieu __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
[Rd] zip() containing windows specific code?
Dear R devel list
I was wondering whether zip() contains a windows specific call to
system(), as the argument "invisible" seems to be windows specific, yet
is used anytime by zip:
invisible(system2(zip, args, invisible = TRUE))
Indeed, calling zip() on Linux results in a warning message:
file.create("try")
[1] TRUE
zip("try.zip", "try")
adding: try (stored 0%)
Message d'avis :
In system2(zip, args, invisible = TRUE) :
arguments 'minimized' and 'invisible' are for Windows only
unlink("try")
Best
Matthieu
> sessionInfo()
R version 2.14.1 (2011-12-22)
Platform: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu (64-bit)
locale:
[1] LC_CTYPE=fr_FR.UTF-8 LC_NUMERIC=C
[3] LC_TIME=fr_FR.UTF-8LC_COLLATE=fr_FR.UTF-8
[5] LC_MONETARY=fr_FR.UTF-8LC_MESSAGES=en_US.utf8
[7] LC_PAPER=C LC_NAME=C
[9] LC_ADDRESS=C LC_TELEPHONE=C
[11] LC_MEASUREMENT=fr_FR.UTF-8 LC_IDENTIFICATION=C
attached base packages:
[1] stats graphics grDevices utils datasets methods base
other attached packages:
[1] colorout_0.9-9
__
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Re: [Rd] na.omit option in prcomp: formula interface only
Dear r-devel list, dear Ben I came across a post of Ben Bolker from Feb 2012 (see below) on handling NA values in prcomp(). As I faced the same issue and found Ben's suggestions interesting, I was wondering whether this led to further discussions I might have missed? I understand handling NA values is far from trivial, but would it be possible to add a warning in the documentation, and/or whenever na.action is used with prcomp() on a data frame (suggesting to use the formula instead?)? Thanks! Matthieu Stigler This is a wishlist/request for discussion about the behaviour of the na.action option in prcomp, specifically the fact that it only applies to the formula interface. I had a question from a friend (who is smart and careful and generally R's TFM, although like all of us he misses things sometimes) asking why the na.action= argument didn't seem to be doing anything in prcomp (i.e. one gets an "Error in svd(x, nu=0): infinite or missing values in 'x'"). Some poking later, I realized that na.action only applied to the formula interface (so I told him to try prcomp(~.,data=x,...) instead). Sufficiently careful reading of the help page, with hindsight, revealed that na.action only appears in the arguments for the formula method, not the default (on the other hand, 'scale.' only appears in the default formula, but it *does* work with prcomp.formula as well, because prcomp.formula passes ... through to prcomp.default ...) Would it be reasonable to (at least) add a sentence to the documentation saying that na.action applies only to the formula interface or (possibly) to add some NA-processing machinery to prcomp.default to allow it to handle na.action as well? (I can appreciate from looking at stats:::prcomp.formula that the NA-processing is not completely trivial ...) Ben Bolker [[alternative HTML version deleted]] __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
[Rd] R CMD check: unknown option ‘--outdir==RCHECK’
Dear R devel I am experiencing a problem using R CMD check. I tried to specify the argument outdir, but get every time the error message: Warning: unknown option â--outdir==RCHECKâ This happens both on R 2.15.2 Linux, as well as R 3.0.1 Windows, with latest Rtools. Is it just that I am not passing the argument the right way, or is there an issue with R CMD check? I tried to write the argument in many differents ways, but it always fails. Standard way I tried is: $ R CMD check --outdir="RCHECK" pkg.tar.gz Warning: unknown option â--outdir=RCHECK' Thanks for your advices! Matthieu Stigler [[alternative HTML version deleted]] __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
[Rd] Feature request: about lag(), which.min() and cat().
Hello I'm only user of R and have many little knowledge in programming but I permit to send you some whishes/suggestions for R. which.min like which(), which.min() should also include an argument arr.ind. Note that one can have it with which(a==min(a), arr.ind=TRUE) but if there is a reason to build a special function which.min, why not add also this nice argument? lag() If one wants to construct a time series model, it is often useful to have the lags matrix. This is available with embed(ts,k) but the time series class disappears. So it would be nice that the argument k of lag() also admit values of length >1, which would give the same result as embed() but keep the class. In his wish list of 1 January 2008 (point 8), Gabor Grothendieck spoke about a function Lag. Maybe also a function lags otherwise if the idea of length(k)>1 is not good? cat() It would be really nice if cat() could also include matrix and lists as values. This would allow big improvements for output written in a file. Thank you for what you make for R, it is a really nice program! __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
[Rd] Suggestion: add a warning in the help-file of unique()
Hello I'm sorry if this suggestion/correction was already made but after a search in devel list I did not find any mention of it. I would just suggest to add a warning or an exemple for the help-file of the function unique() like "Note that unique() compares only identical values. Values which, are printed equally but in facts are not identical will be treated as different." > a<-c(0.2, 0.3, 0.2, 0.4-0.1) > a [1] 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 > unique(a) [1] 0.2 0.3 0.3 > Well this is just the idea and the sentence could be made better (my poor english...). Maybe a reference to RFAQ 7.31 could be made. Maybe is this behaviour clear and logical for experienced users, but I don't think it is for beginners. I personnaly spent two hours to see that the problem in my code came from this. I was thinking about modify the function unique() to introduce a "tol" argument which allows to compare with a tolerance level (with default value zero to keep unique consistent) like all.equal(), but it seemed too complicated with my little understanding. Bests regards and many thanks for what you do for R! Matthieu Stigler __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
