On 2/12/2008 11:20 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Full_Name: Gerhard Thallinger
> Version: R 2.2.0 through R 2.6.2
> OS: Windows XP
> Submission from: (NULL) (129.27.145.220)
>
>
> The uninstall key in the Windows Registry
> (HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Uninstall\)
> is the sa
On Tue, 12 Feb 2008, Peter Dalgaard wrote:
> I stumbled on the following:
>
>> library(stats4)
>> example(mle)
>> confint.default(fit2)
> Error in UseMethod("vcov") : no applicable method for "vcov"
> In addition: Warning message:
> In object$coefficients :
> $ operator not defined for this S4 cl
> I'm thinking (by now quite strongly) that there is a place
> in "Introduction to R" (and maybe other basic documentation)
> for an account of arithmetic precision in R (and in digital
> computation generally).
>
> A section "Arithmetic Precision in R" near the beginning
> would alert people to th
On 2/12/2008 1:16 PM, Bos, Roger wrote:
> I consider this a feature because when I am done testing the new
> version, I just delete the old directory. Deleting the directory is
> usually easier than uninstalling.
If you ran the installer with the default settings, just deleting the
old directory
I consider this a feature because when I am done testing the new
version, I just delete the old directory. Deleting the directory is
usually easier than uninstalling.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Duncan Murdoch
Sent: Tuesday, Februar
On 2/12/2008 1:02 PM, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
> On 2/12/2008 12:45 PM, Henrik Bengtsson wrote:
>> This is a beautiful example on how an added feature matures into a bug
>> over time :)
>>
>> I let the Windows developers argue with the pro's and con's of your
>> suggestion. I just wanna add a relate
I stumbled on the following:
> library(stats4)
> example(mle)
> confint.default(fit2)
Error in UseMethod("vcov") : no applicable method for "vcov"
In addition: Warning message:
In object$coefficients :
$ operator not defined for this S4 class, returning NULL
> vcov(fit2)
lymax
On 2/12/2008 12:45 PM, Henrik Bengtsson wrote:
> This is a beautiful example on how an added feature matures into a bug
> over time :)
>
> I let the Windows developers argue with the pro's and con's of your
> suggestion. I just wanna add a related suggestion that when you have
> multiple installa
I don't think that we need a full discussion in the Introduction, but
how about early on it shows an example of 2 floating point numbers not
being equal (and one of the work arounds like all.equal) along with a
note (bright, bold, etc.) that says that if the reader did not expect
the FALSE result t
This is a beautiful example on how an added feature matures into a bug
over time :)
I let the Windows developers argue with the pro's and con's of your
suggestion. I just wanna add a related suggestion that when you have
multiple installations and you run "Unistall R 2.6.0" the first dialog
('R f
On Tue, 12 Feb 2008, Oleg Sklyar wrote:
> Dear developers:
>
> I have just came across an (unexpected to me) behaviour of lists when
> assigning NULLs to list elements. I understand that a NULL is a valid R
> object, thus assigning a NULL to a list element should yield exactly the
> same result as
Full_Name: Gerhard Thallinger
Version: R 2.2.0 through R 2.6.2
OS: Windows XP
Submission from: (NULL) (129.27.145.220)
The uninstall key in the Windows Registry
(HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Uninstall\)
is the same ("R for Windows_is1") for all R versions
(at least from 2.2.0
>From your tone, I gather you don't much like this behavior, and I can see your
point, as it not very intuitive that setting a list element to NULL deletes
any existing element at that index. But is there a better way to delete an
element from a list? Maybe there should be.
Jeff
Prof Brian Rip
On 12-Feb-08 14:53:19, Gavin Simpson wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-02-12 at 15:35 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Dear developer,
>>
>> in my version of R (2.4.0) as weel as in a more recent version
>> (2.6.0) on different computers, we found this problem :
>
> No problem in R. This is the FAQ of all
:) It is a good idea, but i don't it would work. We'd have hundreds of
emails on R-help and R-devel complaining about mysterious warning
messages for code that had been working just fine for two years
Gabor
On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 11:13:36PM +0800, Berwin A Turlach wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Feb 20
On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 15:47:56 +0100
Gabor Csardi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> OMG, not again please!
>
> FAQ 7.31.
Yeah, there seems to be a cluster of that type of questions at the
moment.
Perhaps it is time to introduce a global option "HaveReadFAQ7.31" whose
default is "FALSE" but can be chan
Oleg Sklyar wrote:
> Dear developers:
>
> I have just came across an (unexpected to me) behaviour of lists when
> assigning NULLs to list elements. I understand that a NULL is a valid R
> object, thus assigning a NULL to a list element should yield exactly the
> same result as assigning any oth
On Tue, 2008-02-12 at 15:35 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Dear developer,
>
> in my version of R (2.4.0) as weel as in a more recent version (2.6.0)
> on different computers, we found this problem :
No problem in R. This is the FAQ of all FAQs (Type III SS is probably up
there as well).
See
On 2/12/2008 9:35 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Dear developer,
>
> in my version of R (2.4.0) as weel as in a more recent version (2.6.0)
> on different computers, we found this problem :
This is not a bug, it's a limitation of finite precision arithmetic, and
it's FAQ 7.31.
Duncan Murdoch
OMG, not again please!
FAQ 7.31.
Thanks!
On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 03:35:09PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Dear developer,
>
> in my version of R (2.4.0) as weel as in a more recent version (2.6.0)
> on different computers, we found this problem :
>
> > a<-(58/40-1)
> > a
> [1] 0.45
> >
Dear developer,
in my version of R (2.4.0) as weel as in a more recent version (2.6.0)
on different computers, we found this problem :
> a<-(58/40-1)
> a
[1] 0.45
> b<-(18/40)
> b
[1] 0.45
> a a==b
[1] FALSE
>
Something seems wrong here.
but if we do
> c<-0.45
> d<-0.45
> chttp://www.s
On Tue, 12 Feb 2008, Oleg Sklyar wrote:
> Dear developers:
>
> I have just came across an (unexpected to me) behaviour of lists when
> assigning NULLs to list elements. I understand that a NULL is a valid R
> object, thus assigning a NULL to a list element should yield exactly the
> same result as
On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 11:06:59AM +, Oleg Sklyar wrote:
> Dear developers:
>
> I have just came across an (unexpected to me) behaviour of lists when
> assigning NULLs to list elements. I understand that a NULL is a valid R
> object, thus assigning a NULL to a list element should yield exact
Dear developers:
I have just came across an (unexpected to me) behaviour of lists when
assigning NULLs to list elements. I understand that a NULL is a valid R
object, thus assigning a NULL to a list element should yield exactly the
same result as assigning any other object. So I was surprised w
24 matches
Mail list logo
