Hi Duncan, Martin,
Thanks for your answers.
For my real case I was generating millions of random positions
on a genome.
I compared sample.int() performance between R-2.15.1 and R-devel,
and, for me, it performs better in R-2.15.1 (almost 3x faster and
also uses slightly less memory):
With R-2.
On 12-10-21 09:08 PM, Martin Morgan wrote:
> On 10/21/2012 12:28 PM, Ben Bolker wrote:
>>
>>Not desperately important, but nice to have and possibly of use to
>> others, is the ability to suppress specific warnings rather than
>> suppressing warnings indiscriminately. I often know of a specifi
On 10/21/2012 12:28 PM, Ben Bolker wrote:
Not desperately important, but nice to have and possibly of use to
others, is the ability to suppress specific warnings rather than
suppressing warnings indiscriminately. I often know of a specific
warning that I want to ignore (because I know that's
Not desperately important, but nice to have and possibly of use to
others, is the ability to suppress specific warnings rather than
suppressing warnings indiscriminately. I often know of a specific
warning that I want to ignore (because I know that's it's a false
positive/ignorable), but the cu
Dear Brian,
thanks for the reply.
Indeed, metaGSEA was the package being CHECK'ed & it turns out that the R CMD
CHECK metaGSEA errors were due to a missing 'Depends: methods' from the
DESCRIPTION of a dependent package.
I went back and CHECK'ed under R 2.14.2 and R 2.13.1, and indeed you're ri
