Which 'Windows binaries'?
Mine are correct, so you need to take this up with the builder (named
on CRAN). No one else on R-devel can do anything about this.
On Fri, 18 Nov 2011, Henrik Bengtsson wrote:
FYI,
for the last few revision the version string for both R v2.14.0
patched and R devel
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 9:34 AM, Kevin R. Coombes
wrote:
> You can also see the odd behavior without wrapping round in another
> function:
>
>> round(100.1, digits=)
> [1] 100
Hmm... is there a reason for why the parser accepts that construct?
Some example:
> parse(text="f(a=)")
expression(f(a=)
2011/11/18 Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso :
>
> I don't see how MOSEK is making free software stronger. It's not
> encouraging the usage of more free software. It's encouraging the use
> of MOSEK. MOSEK should not be endorsed by an organisation that is
> supposed to promote free software.
>
> If these rea
FYI,
for the last few revision the version string for both R v2.14.0
patched and R devel are not correct for the Windows binaries. This is
what R --version and sessionInfo() report since a couple of days:
R version 2.14.0 Patched (2006-00-00 r0)
R Under development (unstable) (2006-00-00 r00
Could whoever is in charge of the next DSC contact me? We might be
able to co-host it with interface in Houston, May 16-18 2012.
Hadley
--
Assistant Professor / Dobelman Family Junior Chair
Department of Statistics / Rice University
http://had.co.nz/
___
Jordi:
Why do you want to reduce demand for Octave by forcing people who
want to link to a commercial product to abandon Octave?
Are you familiar with Shapiro and Varian (1998) Information
Rules: A Strategic Guide to the Network Economy (Harvard Bus. Sch.
Pr.)? Varian is now
You are, of course, missing the obvious solution, which is to do nothing.
The "endorsement" of a non-free project seems to me to reside only in
your imagination. The primary product produced by "The R Project for
Statistical Computing" is the statistical software environment R, which
is relea
Let me give a little more context of why this is important.
As you can read in this thread:
http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=CAPHS2gwmxJGF9Cy8%3DSEGasQcVRg_Lqu-
ndCdVhO-r1LJsRQGuA%40mail.gmail.com&forum_name=octave-dev
The author of MOSEK basically created a non-free
On Nov 18, 2011, at 12:00 PM, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
> I'm sorry about the tone of my previous email. Let me try again in a
> cleaner way.
>
> The problem is: R or the organisation behind R via its infrastructure
> seems to be endorsing R-Forge, and R-Forge is hosting at least one
> proj
On Nov 18, 2011, at 1:00 PM, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
I'm sorry about the tone of my previous email. Let me try again in a
cleaner way.
The problem is: R or the organisation behind R via its infrastructure
seems to be endorsing R-Forge, and R-Forge is hosting at least one
project whose s
I'm sorry about the tone of my previous email. Let me try again in a
cleaner way.
The problem is: R or the organisation behind R via its infrastructure
seems to be endorsing R-Forge, and R-Forge is hosting at least one
project whose sole purpose is to link R with non-free software. This
looks like
2011/11/18 Simon Urbanek :
> I think you are misunderstanding a few things here. First, "R"
> doesn't endorse anything - it is a program,
It is also an organisation and that organisation has a website.
Someone is responsible for the contents of that website and the views
espoused in it. Saying tha
You can also see the odd behavior without wrapping round in another
function:
> round(100.1, digits=)
[1] 100
On 11/18/2011 10:19 AM, Joris Meys wrote:
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 5:10 PM, Gavin Simpson wrote:
round is indicated to not evaluate its arguments. I don't follow the C
code well enoug
Yes indeed. My mistake.
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 4:45 PM, Joris Meys wrote:
> Because if you calculate the probability and then make uniform values,
> nothing guarantees that the sum of those uniform values actually is
> larger than 50,000. You only have 50% chance it is, in fact...
> Cheers
> Jo
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 5:10 PM, Gavin Simpson wrote:
>
> round is indicated to not evaluate its arguments. I don't follow the C
> code well enough to know if it should be catching the missing argument
> further on - it must be because it is falling back to the default, but
> the above explains th
Jordi,
I think you are misunderstanding a few things here. First, "R" doesn't endorse
anything - it is a program, it does what you tell it to do. Second, whoever
runs R-forge doesn't endorse the packages hosted on it, either. It's just an
infrastructure, with no claim about endorsement of the p
On Fri, 2011-11-18 at 16:43 +0100, Joris Meys wrote:
> I have stumbled across some behaviour in R that I really can't place,
> and that makes coding a bit tricky. I know that I can work around it
> when explicitly checking for missing arguments, but still...
> I have two functions. I have a first f
On Nov 18, 2011, at 10:43 AM, Joris Meys wrote:
> I have stumbled across some behaviour in R that I really can't place,
> and that makes coding a bit tricky. I know that I can work around it
> when explicitly checking for missing arguments, but still...
> I have two functions. I have a first func
Because if you calculate the probability and then make uniform values,
nothing guarantees that the sum of those uniform values actually is
larger than 50,000. You only have 50% chance it is, in fact...
Cheers
Joris
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 4:08 PM, Karl Forner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> A probably very naiv
I have stumbled across some behaviour in R that I really can't place,
and that makes coding a bit tricky. I know that I can work around it
when explicitly checking for missing arguments, but still...
I have two functions. I have a first function based on paste
fun1 <- function(x,y){
prin
On 11/18/2011 07:08 AM, Karl Forner wrote:
Hi,
A probably very naive remark, but I believe that the probability of sum(
runif(1) )>= 5 is exactly 0.5. So why not just test that, and
generate the uniform values only if needed ?
My thought as well, but actually the deviates need to have
Hi,
A probably very naive remark, but I believe that the probability of sum(
runif(1) ) >= 5 is exactly 0.5. So why not just test that, and
generate the uniform values only if needed ?
Karl Forner
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 6:09 PM, Raymond wrote:
> Hi R developers,
>
>I am new to th
Hi all,
in a package, I register two S3 classes (namely ff_vector and ffdf) by
calling setOldClass() in order to use them as slots in S4 classes. Now,
R CMD check gives me the warning:
Undocumented S4 classes:
'ff_vector' 'ffdf'
Is there a way to avoid having to document classes I did not w
Someone ambitious could find problems like
this using random input testing like I talked
about at useR last summer.
http://www.burns-stat.com/pages/Present/random_input_test_annotated.pdf
Testing graphics would be more labor intensive
than the testing I do, but you could think of it
as a video g
> Dear R-core team,
> I think I found a small inconsistency in the boxplot function. I don't want
> to post it as a bug since I'm not sure this might be considered as one
> according to the FAQ --- and this is not a major problem. Don't hesitate to
> tell me if I'm wrong.
> If you try to do a
25 matches
Mail list logo
