[Rd] Installation on CYGWIN Failed (PR#9442)

This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_0J8TMtVXSg+LJn2Si9guUw) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Hi, I tried to install R-2.4.1 on cygwin system. "./configure" succeeded, but make failed. Below, I provide the output from the proces

[Rd] Perhaps a stupid question about clipboards....

I have a stupid question. Why is the clipboard accessed through file() and not, say, a clipboard() connection? Is there a good reason for this or is it simply historical? -- Byron Ellis ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) "Oook" -- The Librarian __ R-devel@r-project.o

Re: [Rd] Compiling R-devel under Windows

You have an old snapshot. R-devel r40430 seems fine. You could have looked at the refman.log for informative output (no need to speculate: it was a help file that was provisional at the time). Please don't expect all aspects of R-devel to work on all platforms at all times: It is R versi

[Rd] Compiling R-devel under Windows

Hello there, I have a habit of compiling R-patched and R-devel every few days. Recently, I noticed the following problem: I downloaded both versions with Revision: 40421, Last Changed Date: 2007-01-09. R-patched compiles with no problem. R-devel compiles fine but when it starts to make PDF docu

Re: [Rd] Trailing message on R CMD BATCH

Brian Ripley stats.ox.ac.uk> writes: > Unix versions of R CMD BATCH have reported proc.time() unless the script > ends in q(). E.g. if the input is 'search()' the output is > > > invisible(options(echo = TRUE)) > > search() > [1] ".GlobalEnv""package:stats" "package:graphics" > [4]

Re: [Rd] wine and build difference between R.2.4.0 and R 2.4.1 windows binaries?

On 1/10/2007 2:29 PM, Hin-Tak Leung wrote: > Does anybody (most probably the core team) know if there is > any difference in how the official 2.4.0 and 2.4.1 binaries are > built? > > Problem is, 2.4.0 loads with the wine (I tried a few recent > versions, and also used 2.3.x under wine from time t

[Rd] wine and build difference between R.2.4.0 and R 2.4.1 windows binaries?

Does anybody (most probably the core team) know if there is any difference in how the official 2.4.0 and 2.4.1 binaries are built? Problem is, 2.4.0 loads with the wine (I tried a few recent versions, and also used 2.3.x under wine from time to time), but 2.4.1 won't. Thanks. Hin-Tak Leung

Re: [Rd] Trailing message on R CMD BATCH

I do find that info to be useful and would very much appreciate if it is kept. b Brian Ripley wrote: > Unix versions of R CMD BATCH have reported proc.time() unless the script > ends in q(). E.g. if the input is 'search()' the output is > >> invisible(options(echo = TRUE)) >> search() > [1] ".G

Re: [Rd] Trailing message on R CMD BATCH

I use it a lot. Kasper On Jan 10, 2007, at 5:06 AM, Brian Ripley wrote: > Unix versions of R CMD BATCH have reported proc.time() unless the > script > ends in q(). E.g. if the input is 'search()' the output is > >> invisible(options(echo = TRUE)) >> search() > [1] ".GlobalEnv""package

Re: [Rd] Trailing message on R CMD BATCH

I do find the timing useful and would prefer it to be retained unless it causes a problem elsewhere. -roger Brian Ripley wrote: > Unix versions of R CMD BATCH have reported proc.time() unless the script > ends in q(). E.g. if the input is 'search()' the output is > >> invisible(options(echo =

Re: [Rd] Trailing message on R CMD BATCH

I rather like it. Patrick Burns [EMAIL PROTECTED] +44 (0)20 8525 0696 http://www.burns-stat.com (home of S Poetry and "A Guide for the Unwilling S User") Brian Ripley wrote: >Unix versions of R CMD BATCH have reported proc.time() unless the script >ends in q(). E.g. if the input is 'search()'

[Rd] Trailing message on R CMD BATCH

Unix versions of R CMD BATCH have reported proc.time() unless the script ends in q(). E.g. if the input is 'search()' the output is > invisible(options(echo = TRUE)) > search() [1] ".GlobalEnv""package:stats" "package:graphics" [4] "package:grDevices" "package:utils" "package:dat