Hi Spencer,
On 07/19/2012 08:29 PM, Spencer Graves wrote:
Hello, All:
Do you know of any capability to substitute more then one byte in
an object of class Raw?
Consider the following:
> let4 <- paste(letters[1:4], collapse='')
> (let4Raw <- charToRaw(let4))
[1] 61 62 63 64
Hello, All:
Do you know of any capability to substitute more then one byte in
an object of class Raw?
Consider the following:
> let4 <- paste(letters[1:4], collapse='')
> (let4Raw <- charToRaw(let4))
[1] 61 62 63 64
> (let. <- sub('bc', '--', let4Raw))
[1] "61" "62" "63" "64"
>
On 07/19/2012 09:13 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
I've asked a question in the BioConductor list about package
management. My solution depends on your answer to the following
question.
Are installed R packages "relocatable"?
I mean relocatable in the same sense that files in a RedHat RPM file
might b
On 12-07-19 4:41 PM, Yihui Xie wrote:
I'm not sure if there is a bug somewhere; see this example:
There's definitely a bug in the handling of empty lists, such as the
empty list of commands in your first example and the empty list of
arguments in your second. There's a partial workaround cur
I'm not sure if there is a bug somewhere; see this example:
getParseData(parse(text='function(x){}'))
line1 col1 line2 col2 id parent token terminal text
1 11 18 1 11 FUNCTION TRUE function
2 19 19 2 11'(' TRUE
Short answer:
setRepositories() # chose what you want from BioC
install.packages()
works and always has. 'Smoke and mirrors' are not actually needed.
As for relocatability:
I am guessing you are talking about a Linux cluster ... but the details
do matter.
The distribution of Windows binarie
On Jul 19, 2012, at 12:13 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
> I've asked a question in the BioConductor list about package
> management. My solution depends on your answer to the following
> question.
>
> Are installed R packages "relocatable"?
>
It depends on the platform and what you want to relocate
You might be able to take advantage of the ObjectTable support in C, which
is part of R, see R_ext/Callbacks.h.
Michael
On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 10:30 AM, Jeroen Ooms wrote:
> I was wondering if anyone knows more about the state of RObjectTables. This
> largely undocumented functionality was intr
I was wondering if anyone knows more about the state of RObjectTables. This
largely undocumented functionality was introduced by Duncan around 2002
somewhere and enables you create an environment where the contents are
dynamically queried by R through a hook function. It is mentioned in R
Internals
> Dirk Eddelbuettel
> on Wed, 18 Jul 2012 20:16:25 -0500 writes:
> For Pete's sake, could you please stop spamming the
> r-devel list?
Indeed! R-devel is reserved for people who do their homework!
I've added "moderation" for Mr. Clone.
Martin Maechler,
ETH Zurich
> We
I've asked a question in the BioConductor list about package
management. My solution depends on your answer to the following
question.
Are installed R packages "relocatable"?
I mean relocatable in the same sense that files in a RedHat RPM file
might be "relocatable" after compiling
(http://www.rp
On 19/07/2012 12:46, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
I don't see this in R-patched; I don't have 2.15.1 installed on this
machine. But the problem appears to be that XML exports a function
called source() (a generic), and you're using it -- but not the current
version, which doesn't give the warning.
Wh
I don't see this in R-patched; I don't have 2.15.1 installed on this
machine. But the problem appears to be that XML exports a function
called source() (a generic), and you're using it -- but not the current
version, which doesn't give the warning.
Duncan Murdoch
On 12-07-18 1:36 PM, David H
Hi
I have recently upgraded to R 2.15.1. Since the upgrade, I am getting
some odd behaviour that I don't understand. If I source a file which
has a function with a require (or library) statement in it, then the
first time I source it behaves as expected. If I then call the
function (so that the re
14 matches
Mail list logo
