[Rd] confint/nls

2006-01-07 Thread Ben Bolker
I have found some "issues" (bugs?) with nls confidence intervals ... some with the relatively new "port" algorithm, others more general (but possibly in the "well, don't do that" category). I have corresponded some with Prof. Ripley about them, but I thought I would just report how far I've go

Re: [Rd] minor build problem

2006-01-07 Thread Simon Urbanek
Cyrus, thanks for the report. On Jan 7, 2006, at 1:41 PM, Cyrus Harmon wrote: > I'm trying to build from the latest SVN sources on Mac OS X 10.4.3 > and I seem to be having a problem making the documentation. > > When I do make install, i get the following: > > ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):~/src/R/r-deve

Re: [Rd] minor build problem

2006-01-07 Thread Prof Brian Ripley
We know: this is due to a change in where the version is stored that someone did not check the consequences of. It will be fixed shortly (I am testing a fix right now). Meanwhile, make; make; make install works. On Sat, 7 Jan 2006, Cyrus Harmon wrote: > I'm trying to build from the latest SV

[Rd] minor build problem

2006-01-07 Thread Cyrus Harmon
I'm trying to build from the latest SVN sources on Mac OS X 10.4.3 and I seem to be having a problem making the documentation. When I do make install, i get the following: ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):~/src/R/r-devel/build-f95$ make install make[1]: Nothing to be done for `front-matter'. SVN-REVISION is

Re: [Rd] Multiplication (PR#8466)

2006-01-07 Thread casella
Thanks Herve Pages wrote: > Thomas Lumley wrote: > >> On Fri, 6 Jan 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >> >> >>> hi - in version 2.1 the command >>> >>> >>> -2^2 >>> >>> gives >>> >>> -4 >>> >>> as the answer. (-2)^2 is evaluated correctly. >>> >> >> >> So is -2^2. The pr

Re: [Rd] Multiplication (PR#8466)

2006-01-07 Thread George Casella
Thanks Herve Pages wrote: > Thomas Lumley wrote: > >> On Fri, 6 Jan 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >> >> >>> hi - in version 2.1 the command >>> >>> >>> -2^2 >>> >>> gives >>> >>> -4 >>> >>> as the answer. (-2)^2 is evaluated correctly. >>> >> >> >> So is -2^2. The pr