On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, James Bullard wrote:
Hi All, I am confused about the following code. I thought that the problem
stemmed from lazy evaluation and the fact that 'i' is never evaluated within
the first lapply. However, I am then confused as to why it gets bound to the
final element of the la
Hi All, I am confused about the following code. I thought that the
problem stemmed from lazy evaluation and the fact that 'i' is never
evaluated within the first lapply. However, I am then confused as to
why it gets bound to the final element of the lapply. The environments
of the returned
Is this a true problem?
Artistic License may conflict with GPL
The source code for R contains references to both the GNU General
Public License 2.0 (GPL) and to the Artistic License. These two
licenses include some contradictory restrictions.
The Ohloh source code parser is exhaustive, and can r
Hi,
is there a way to have R CMD check test the example():s twice, once
with all Suggest package hidden or once, if $R_check_force_suggests=1,
with all Suggest available?
BACKGROUND: I just had a case where my R.matlab package passed all R
CMD checks on my local machine, but when I uploaded it to
2008/7/20 Duncan Murdoch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 20/07/2008 10:02 AM, Laurent Gautier wrote:
>>
>> I tripped on that while crafting the example.
>>
>> The problem still exists when moving the "releases" in the middle,
>> and removing the last "release".
I also see that the C code contains old/ir
On 20/07/2008 10:02 AM, Laurent Gautier wrote:
I tripped on that while crafting the example.
The problem still exists when moving the "releases" in the middle,
and removing the last "release".
I can't spot any problems in the new version of your code, but I can't
reproduce the problem, either
I tripped on that while crafting the example.
The problem still exists when moving the "releases" in the middle,
and removing the last "release".
#include
#include
SEXP createObject(void)
{
SEXP x_R;
int len_x = 100;
PROTECT(x_R = allocVector(REALSXP, len_x));
Rprintf("Created 'x
On 20/07/2008 9:01 AM, Laurent Gautier wrote:
Dear list,
While trying to identify the root of a problem I am having with
garbage collected variables,
I have come across the following oddity: depending on whether --verbose is set
or not, I obtain different results.
You are working with variable
Dear list,
While trying to identify the root of a problem I am having with
garbage collected variables,
I have come across the following oddity: depending on whether --verbose is set
or not, I obtain different results.
I have made a small standalone example to demonstrate it.
The example is very
Warning does seem sensible (and there is already a test for length > 0),
so I've added one.
Generally R has followed the Unix philosophy of not chatting and trying to
make sense of the user's inputs (although it has multiple authors, and
some advocate more of what others see as nannying). We
10 matches
Mail list logo
