Kris Jones fishsciences.net> writes:
Quick answer: this question is inappropriate for the r devel*pment
list (intended for questions about code development, technical questions,
etc.). The main r help list, or the r-sig-ecology list, would be better.
It is true that GAMs are more flexible for
> -Original Message-
> From: r-devel-boun...@r-project.org
> [mailto:r-devel-boun...@r-project.org] On Behalf Of Prof Brian Ripley
> Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 4:41 AM
> To: Berwin A Turlach
> Cc: r-devel
> Subject: Re: [Rd] LOGICAL arguments in FORTRAN code
>
> On Thu, 8 Apr 2010, Be
On Thu, 8 Apr 2010, Berwin A Turlach wrote:
G'day Brian,
On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 12:40:45 +0100 (BST)
Prof Brian Ripley wrote:
On Thu, 8 Apr 2010, Berwin A Turlach wrote:
[...]
Thus, given that the port of quadprog existed for quite some time, I
am wondering whether it is o.k. to pass R objec
G'day Brian,
On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 12:40:45 +0100 (BST)
Prof Brian Ripley wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Apr 2010, Berwin A Turlach wrote:
[...]
> > Thus, given that the port of quadprog existed for quite some time, I
> > am wondering whether it is o.k. to pass R objects with storage mode
> > logical into F
On Thu, 8 Apr 2010, Berwin A Turlach wrote:
G'day all,
I just took over maintenance of the quadprog package from Kurt Hornik
and noticed that one of the FORTRAN routines has an argument that is
declared to be a LOGICAL. The R code that calls this routine (via
the .Fortran interface) passes the
G'day all,
I just took over maintenance of the quadprog package from Kurt Hornik
and noticed that one of the FORTRAN routines has an argument that is
declared to be a LOGICAL. The R code that calls this routine (via
the .Fortran interface) passes the argument down wrapped in a call to
as.logical(
