I tried to do this a couple of years ago, cf. doCall() in R.utils.
It's quite a tricky problem and I recall I wasn't perfectly happy with
the solution but it's a start.
/Henrik
On Jan 28, 2008 6:19 PM, hadley wickham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Has anyone developed a version of do.call that is s
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008, hadley wickham wrote:
> Maybe this function won't actually be the help I had hoped it would
> be. Unfortunately some functions (e.g. glm via glm.control) throw
> errors when ... contain arguments that don't match some (eventual)
> argument list.
>
> Or is this a bug in glm?
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008, Hin-Tak Leung wrote:
> Prof Brian Ripley wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Jan 2008, Michael Braun wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks for everyone's help. Unfortunately, still no success. So I took
>>> the alternate route suggested in section A.3.1.5 of R-admin, and just
>>> created a symbolic link
Maybe this function won't actually be the help I had hoped it would
be. Unfortunately some functions (e.g. glm via glm.control) throw
errors when ... contain arguments that don't match some (eventual)
argument list.
Or is this a bug in glm? It certainly seems that the documentation
should mentio
Has anyone developed a version of do.call that is safe in the sense
that it silently drops parameters that do not appear in the formals of
the called function? This is useful when ... ends up being used in
multiple further functions. e.g.
f <- function(a, b) {a + b}
do.call(f, list(a=1, b=2, c=3)
Prof Brian Ripley wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jan 2008, Michael Braun wrote:
>
>> Thanks for everyone's help. Unfortunately, still no success. So I
>> took the alternate route suggested in section A.3.1.5 of R-admin, and
>> just created a symbolic link from libRblas.so to
>> .../libmkl_gf_lp64.so. I
Peter Dalgaard wrote:
> CapCity wrote:
>> We recently developed an R program as part of an application. We'd like to
>> distribute this, but not allow access to the R source code. Is this
>> possible?
>>
>>
> Not in any obvious way, and I don't think anyone around here would
> volunteer to help
I believe that Insightful supports the distribution of encrypted S-Plus
code, but you would need to talk with them about whether, how, how much
money, etc. If they support that, you can port your R code to S-Plus
and distribute it as encrypted S-Plus code.
hope this helps.
Spencer Graves
Pet
Hi there Super-Secret CapCity,
On Jan 28, 2008 10:41 AM, CapCity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We recently developed an R program as part of an application. We'd like to
> distribute this, but not allow access to the R source code. Is this
> possible?
if your code is using the R language (not nati
CapCity wrote:
> We recently developed an R program as part of an application. We'd like to
> distribute this, but not allow access to the R source code. Is this
> possible?
>
>
Not in any obvious way, and I don't think anyone around here would
volunteer to help you find out.
--
O__
We recently developed an R program as part of an application. We'd like to
distribute this, but not allow access to the R source code. Is this
possible?
__
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
It's not about data frames: you did not pass tapply a data frame.
There's quite a few strange things here. More likely you intended
> sapply(split(z1$a, z1$b), length)
but that gives list() whereas
> z2 <- subset(z,a == 4)
> sapply(split(z2$a, z2$b), length)
a b c d
0 0 0 1
is as one might ex
Partly about new features and partly about old features that are not being
used.
R_exts/GraphicsEngine.h says
/*
* The current graphics engine (including graphics device) API version
* MUST be integer
*
* This number should be bumped whenever there are changes to
* GraphicsEngine.h or
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008, Laurent Gautier wrote:
> Thanks the answer.
>
> Would submitted patches with strict post-K&R prototypes definition,
> for the "void" cases and for the includes likely to be used by writers of
> R extensions, be accepted ?
Yes, against R-devel.
But some you won't be able to d
Thanks the answer.
Would submitted patches with strict post-K&R prototypes definition,
for the "void" cases and for the includes likely to be used by writers of
R extensions, be accepted ?
Laurent
2008/1/27, Prof Brian Ripley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I think the answer is 'it depends'.
>
> - s
15 matches
Mail list logo
