Re: [Rd] R-3.0.1 - "transient" make check failure in splines-EX.r

2013-05-30 Thread Mike Marchywka
> From: avraham.ad...@guycarp.com > To: r-devel@r-project.org > Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 16:17:36 -0500 > Subject: Re: [Rd] R-3.0.1 - "transient" make check failure in splines-EX.r > > I just found this thread on StackOverflow >

Re: [Rd] R-3.0.1 - "transient" make check failure in splines-EX.r

2013-05-30 Thread Adler, Avraham
I just found this thread on StackOverflow which had the same problem with the `ns` call changing with Revolution, and the answer given by tech support was that the MKL BLAS sometime returns ever-so-slightly

Re: [Rd] R-3.0.1 - "transient" make check failure in splines-EX.r

2013-05-30 Thread Adler, Avraham
Thank you very much, Paul. Serendipitously, I seem to have stumbled on a solution. In my parallel (still unsuccessful) attempt to build a BLAS for a 64bit machine (see ) I remembered from ATLAS that under the newer Windows there is a

Re: [Rd] RFC: a "safe" uniroot() function for future R

2013-05-30 Thread Martin Maechler
Thank you, Ravi and Therry, > Ravi Varadhan > on Thu, 30 May 2013 14:20:19 + writes: > Dear Martin, > I am not sure I like this idea of expanding the interval. It can have bad consequences. The best feature of uniroot is that it makes the user think about the behavior

Re: [Rd] RFC: a "safe" uniroot() function for future R

2013-05-30 Thread Duncan Murdoch
On 13-05-30 6:49 AM, Martin Maechler wrote: Duncan Murdoch on Thu, 30 May 2013 05:27:57 -0400 writes: > On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 4:18 AM, Martin Maechler > wrote: >> With main R releases only happening yearly in spring, now is >> good time to consider *and* discuss new fea

Re: [Rd] R-3.0.1 - "transient" make check failure in splines-EX.r

2013-05-30 Thread William Dunlap
>> identical(ns(x, df = 2), ns(x, df = 2, knots = NULL)) > [1] FALSE >> identical(ns(x, df = 2), ns(x, df = 2, knots = NULL)) > [1] TRUE If you used a function like identicalOrReturnInputs <- function(x, y) { if (identical(x, y)) { TRUE } else { list(x=x, y=y)

Re: [Rd] RFC: a "safe" uniroot() function for future R

2013-05-30 Thread Terry Therneau
Martin, 1. I'd vote for replacement. 2. The "Sig" argument was completely opaque to me. I'd vote for something like this bracket = "fixed" the old behavior, treat the upper and lower as fixed values = "search" expand the limits if needed = "usearch" only the

Re: [Rd] RFC: a "safe" uniroot() function for future R

2013-05-30 Thread Martin Maechler
> Duncan Murdoch > on Thu, 30 May 2013 05:27:57 -0400 writes: > On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 4:18 AM, Martin Maechler > wrote: >> With main R releases only happening yearly in spring, now is >> good time to consider *and* discuss new features for what we >> often call "R-

Re: [Rd] RFC: a "safe" uniroot() function for future R

2013-05-30 Thread Duncan Murdoch
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 4:18 AM, Martin Maechler wrote: > With main R releases only happening yearly in spring, now is > good time to consider *and* discuss new features for what we > often call "R-devel" and more officially is > R Under development (unstable) (.) -- "Unsuffered Consequence

[Rd] RFC: a "safe" uniroot() function for future R

2013-05-30 Thread Martin Maechler
With main R releases only happening yearly in spring, now is good time to consider *and* discuss new features for what we often call "R-devel" and more officially is R Under development (unstable) (.) -- "Unsuffered Consequences" Here is one such example I hereby expose to public scrutiny:

Re: [Rd] What is preferable - a single large package or a few smaller packages?

2013-05-30 Thread Prof Brian Ripley
On 29/05/2013 23:38, Peter Langfelder wrote: Hi all, I maintain the WGCNA package which at present has nearly 200 functions. In the future there will be more. Curious whether it would be preferable or useful to split the package into a couple different ones with different aims. Obviously, when o