Paul Roebuck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Similarly for Bill Dunlap's proposal: suppressMessages would squelch all
>> messages from the call, not just the one from your package's startup code.
>> Now, at present there may not be any, but that could well change as
>> message() gets more widely use
SYSTEM:
--
CPU: AMD64
MOTHERBOARD: ASUS
OS: FEDORA CORE 5 i64_86
R SESSION:
--
> teste<-list(a=c(1,2,3,4),b=c(2,4,6,8))
> teste
$a
[1] 1 2 3 4
$b
[1] 2 4 6 8
> de(teste)
*** buffer overflow detected ***: /usr/lib64/R/bin/exec/R terminated
=== Backtrace: =
Hi all!
I recently tried to install the rJava package on my notebook (Debian Etch /
Kernel 2.6.15 / jdk 1.5.0-5 / R 2.2.1 / rJava ?? the repo one, have a look
below). I compiled R myself with "--with-readline=no" and "--enable-R-shlib
flags". Now, each time loading the library rJava I encouter
It doesn't do that for me:
> example(strptime)
strptm> format(Sys.time(), "%a %b %d %X %Y %Z")
[1] "Sat Apr 15 1:37:39 PM 2006 Eastern Daylight Time"
strptm> x <- c("1jan1960", "2jan1960", "31mar1960", "30jul1960")
strptm> z <- strptime(x, "%d%b%Y")
strptm> z
[1] "1960-01-01" "1960-01-02" "196
Full_Name: Bill Hutchison
Version: 2.2.1
OS: Windows XP
Submission from: (NULL) (69.158.121.13)
example(strptime) produces the following error:
Error in strptime(x, "%d%b%Y") : 2 arguments passed to 'strptime' which requires
3
This error occurs wherever strptime is used. It does not occur in 2.
In thinking about this a bit more I realize that even though the
approach I discussed works on the example, it coerces A to a
vector which may be undesirable in the real application. However, one
could still circumvent the inheritance by performing the vector to
matrix conversion in the generic it
You could just place the array/matrix code into the vector method
rather than using the inheritance mechanism. Note
that if m is a matrix then is(m, "array") is TRUE. This avoids
creating an ugly dummy class, fighting with the inheritance
mechanism, having fragile code, etc. Also its shorter.
s
Thanks for your in-depth explanation. I had noticed the difference
in order in showMethods() output but was unsure whether that was
indicative of the problem or if I was somehow taking advantage of
an undocumented implementation-specific detail.
If I could, I'd like to go back to the original ques
On Fri, 14 Apr 2006, Prof Brian Ripley wrote:
> I carefully did not suggest the use of option 'verbose', as that is used
> in many other places. In particular, with your proposal, you cannot have
> the message without a lot of chatter from library() (and although that has
> a 'verbose' argument,
