On 04/15/2011 11:18 AM, Simon Urbanek wrote:
On Apr 14, 2011, at 11:00 PM, Dario Strbenac wrote:
I have a confusing error from R CMD check that I don't get when running the
example manually by hand.
In the \examples section of an Rd file, I create a GRanges object, then I call
a function wi
On Apr 14, 2011, at 11:00 PM, Dario Strbenac wrote:
> I have a confusing error from R CMD check that I don't get when running the
> example manually by hand.
>
> In the \examples section of an Rd file, I create a GRanges object, then I
> call a function with the GRanges object, whose first 2 l
It would probably be helpful if you could point us to the source version
of your package so that we can take a look what happens.
Which version of R, and the other required packages are you talking about?
Uwe Ligges
On 15.04.2011 05:00, Dario Strbenac wrote:
I have a confusing error from R
An addition to my prior post: my option 3 is not as attractive as
I thought.
In several cases predict.coxph needs to reconstruct the original data
frame, for things that were not saved in the coxph object. The half
dozen lines to redo the orignal call with the same data, na.action, etc
options
On Fri, 2011-04-15 at 09:10 +0200, peter dalgaard wrote:
> I couldn't reproduce it from Terry's description either, but there
> _is_ an issue which parallels the
I'll start with an apology: as a first guess to understand the problem
with predict.coxph I tried something parallel to Ivo's exam
On Apr 14, 2011, at 16:52 , Ivo Shterev wrote:
> Dear Dr. Therneau,
>
> Thank you for your response. Just to point out that we didn't experience any
> problems with the lm() function under R version 2.12.2 (2011-02-25):
I couldn't reproduce it from Terry's description either, but there _is_ an
