On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 5:36 PM, Peter Dalgaard wrote:
>
> The documentation has:
>
> >>
> The internal equivalent of the default method of as.character is performed
> on x (so there is no method dispatch). If you want to operate on non-vector
> objects passing them through deparse first will be r
Stavros Macrakis wrote:
In R 2.9.1 Windows:
nchar(factor(paste('sdf',1:10)))
[1] 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1
so it appears that nchar is counting the number of characters in the numeric
representation, just like:
nchar(as.numeric(factor(paste('sdf',1:10
[1] 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1
but ?nchar sa
In R 2.9.1 Windows:
> nchar(factor(paste('sdf',1:10)))
[1] 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1
so it appears that nchar is counting the number of characters in the numeric
representation, just like:
> nchar(as.numeric(factor(paste('sdf',1:10
[1] 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1
but ?nchar says explicitly:
x: ch
his is a query for suggestions on how best to setup the package for
coxme. This should be ready for CRAN in about a week - I'm working out
documentation details and some last test cases.
The R CMD check and INSTALL processes work great on my computer. The
rub is that they depend on noweb. Both
Dear R-experts,
I have a question on the formulas used in the gam function of the mgcv
package.
I am trying to understand the relationships between:
y~s(x1)+s(x2)+s(x3)+s(x4)
and
y~s(x1,x2,x3,x4)
Does the latter contain the former? what about the smoothers of all
interaction terms?
I hav
On 13 August 2009 at 21:53, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| I would like to simulate the effect of the command-line option --quiet from
| user-level scripts and startup code. From src/main/CommandLineArgs.c I learn
| that Rp->R_Quiet is set, and I see how that is used in main/main.c.
|
| I would use
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009, Saptarshi Guha wrote:
> Thank you. So the reason I wouldnt need to protect y had I returned to
> R, is because had i had done something like
>
> h<-.Call("boo",a)
> where "boo" contains y=foo()
>
> the assignment "<-" to h would have a PROTECT somewhere, i.e R's
> assignment
Oh! Yes, this is the GC at work, "root objects" and everything
referenced from them.
I think I'm understanding the need for PROTECT better.
Thank you
Saptarshi
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 9:39 AM, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
> On 8/24/2009 9:33 AM, Saptarshi Guha wrote:
>>
>> Thank you. So the reason I wo
On 8/24/2009 9:33 AM, Saptarshi Guha wrote:
Thank you. So the reason I wouldnt need to protect y had I returned to
R, is because
had i had done something like
h<-.Call("boo",a)
where "boo" contains y=foo()
the assignment "<-" to h would have a PROTECT somewhere, i.e R's
assignment is doing the
Thank you. So the reason I wouldnt need to protect y had I returned to
R, is because
had i had done something like
h<-.Call("boo",a)
where "boo" contains y=foo()
the assignment "<-" to h would have a PROTECT somewhere, i.e R's
assignment is doing the protection for me.
Had I not returned to R, I
On 8/24/2009 9:10 AM, Sapsi wrote:
Hello
Thank you for the response. So if my call is
y=foo()
z=malloc ( by memory allocations , do you mean via R_alloc and
allocVector and malloc or just the former two)
Any allocation which is managed by R's memory manager, so that includes
the former two,
Hello
Thank you for the response. So if my call is
y=foo()
z=malloc ( by memory allocations , do you mean via R_alloc and
allocVector and malloc or just the former two)
Other statements
Then I need to protect y. And in my case I don't return to R since I
have embedded it.
Why is this the
On 8/23/2009 11:52 PM, Saptarshi Guha wrote:
Hello,
Suppose I have the function
SEXP foo(){
SEXP s;
PROTECT(s=allocVector(...))
UNPROTECT(1);
return(s)
}
y=foo() // foo is a recusrive call
Q: Am i correct in understanding that one does not need to write
PROTECT(y=foo()) ?(and a correspond
13 matches
Mail list logo
