[Rd] legitimate use of :::

2013-08-21 Thread Yihui Xie
Hi, So now R CMD check starts to warn against :::, but I believe sometimes it is legitimate to use it when developing R packages. For example, I have some utils functions that are not exported but I want to share them across the packages that I maintain. I do not need to coordinate with other auth

Re: [Rd] Extending suggestion for stopifnot

2013-08-21 Thread ivo welch
thx to everyone for having listened to my suggestion and reasoning through it, even though it won't fly. maybe, as a last word, let me add a short appeal that is more generic: R is a tough programming language for beginners. anything that allows a user to request additional error-checking, and/o

Re: [Rd] Problem with R >3.0.0

2013-08-21 Thread Prof Brian Ripley
On 21/08/2013 15:00, Prof Brian Ripley wrote: On 21/08/2013 13:45, peter dalgaard wrote: On Aug 20, 2013, at 19:42 , Shelton, Samuel wrote: Hi all, Thanks for getting back to me. We would like to move over to v3.0.0 on our cluster so that we can build matrices larger than 46300*46300 (limit

Re: [Rd] Problem with R >3.0.0

2013-08-21 Thread Ista Zahn
In case this is helpful, I don't see this issue on my Mac Pro with OSX version 10.7.5. Details below. > M <- matrix(1,23171,23171) ; diag(M) <- 0 ; range(colSums(M)) [1] 23170 23170 > sessionInfo() R version 3.0.1 (2013-05-16) Platform: x86_64-apple-darwin10.8.0 (64-bit) locale: [1] en_US.UTF-8

Re: [Rd] Problem with R >3.0.0

2013-08-21 Thread peter dalgaard
On Aug 21, 2013, at 16:39 , peter dalgaard wrote: > > Likely. I'm not seeing it on the iMac/SnowLeopard, only on the MacPro/Lion. > I'm upgrading the MacPorts R on the MacPro now to see whether it has issues > too, but of course that reinstalls everything but the kitchen sink... Whoops. I don

Re: [Rd] Problem with R >3.0.0

2013-08-21 Thread peter dalgaard
On Aug 21, 2013, at 16:00 , Prof Brian Ripley wrote: > On 21/08/2013 13:45, peter dalgaard wrote: >> >> On Aug 20, 2013, at 19:42 , Shelton, Samuel wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Thanks for getting back to me. We would like to move over to v3.0.0 on our >>> cluster so that we can build matrices

Re: [Rd] Problem with R >3.0.0

2013-08-21 Thread Prof Brian Ripley
On 21/08/2013 13:45, peter dalgaard wrote: On Aug 20, 2013, at 19:42 , Shelton, Samuel wrote: Hi all, Thanks for getting back to me. We would like to move over to v3.0.0 on our cluster so that we can build matrices larger than 46300*46300 (limit in R <3.0.0) but so far we can't get things to

Re: [Rd] Extending suggestion for stopifnot

2013-08-21 Thread Geoff Jentry
first, I think it would be more useful if it had an optional character string, so users could write stopifnot( is.matrix(m), "m is not a matrix" ) stop() allows for arbitrary strings __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mai

Re: [Rd] Problem with R >3.0.0

2013-08-21 Thread peter dalgaard
On Aug 20, 2013, at 19:42 , Shelton, Samuel wrote: > Hi all, > > Thanks for getting back to me. We would like to move over to v3.0.0 on our > cluster so that we can build matrices larger than 46300*46300 (limit in R > <3.0.0) > but so far we can't get things to work with R v3.0.0 and higher. I a

Re: [Rd] Problem with R >3.0.0

2013-08-21 Thread Shelton, Samuel
Hi Peter, But this is still an issue bellow the old R limit. I just tried the same with a matrix of 3*3 and I see the same problem. This never used to happen with R v2.15.2 and we could regularly build similarity matrices of 45000*45000. This behavior of filling up the bottom of the matri

Re: [Rd] Problem with R >3.0.0

2013-08-21 Thread Shelton, Samuel
Hi all, Thanks for getting back to me. We would like to move over to v3.0.0 on our cluster so that we can build matrices larger than 46300*46300 (limit in R <3.0.0) but so far we can't get things to work with R v3.0.0 and higher. I am trying to trouble shoot at the moment and I am now thinking tha

Re: [Rd] Extending suggestion for stopifnot

2013-08-21 Thread Deepayan Sarkar
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 3:30 AM, ivo welch wrote: > thx, deepayan: how is stopifnot better than > if (!all(...)) stop() But I am not claiming that it is! If you think it is not useful, then don't use stopifnot(), use stop() instead, and tell your students to do so as well. > given that we