On 05/11/2014 9:36 AM, Peter Simons wrote:
Hi Duncan,
> I don't think we should be removing tests for everybody to allow a few
> people to test a build of R that none of us actually use.
no tests need to be removed.
My response was to Martin, who proposed exactly that.
All that needs
> Le 5 nov. 2014 à 14:45, Dirk Eddelbuettel a écrit :
>
>
> On 5 November 2014 at 14:11, Romain Francois wrote:
> | > Le 5 nov. 2014 à 13:43, Dirk Eddelbuettel a écrit :
> | > You are NOT forced or required to use the Boost distributions header __as
> R
> | > comes with the equivalent functio
Hi Duncan,
> I don't think we should be removing tests for everybody to allow a few
> people to test a build of R that none of us actually use.
no tests need to be removed. All that needs to be done is to distinguish
tests that require the recommended packages from those that don't. Then
users
On 5 November 2014 at 14:11, Romain Francois wrote:
| > Le 5 nov. 2014 à 13:43, Dirk Eddelbuettel a écrit :
| > You are NOT forced or required to use the Boost distributions header __as R
| > comes with the equivalent functionality__ via the Rmath.h header file from
R.
| > Which has functionalit
On 5 November 2014 at 13:54, kaveh wrote:
| Dear,
|
| I was expecting this reaction.
|
| Please do not get caught up in the details of the examples,
| which I have tried to make as simple as possible for your
| benefit.
Well, to be perfectly honst, there you failed.
No need to carry RcppEigen
Envoyé de mon iPhone
> Le 5 nov. 2014 à 13:43, Dirk Eddelbuettel a écrit :
>
>
> On 5 November 2014 at 00:55, kaveh wrote:
> | Dear all,
> |
> |
> | the simple code in below, when send to the
> | win-builder returns the following (and no other)
> | warning:
> |
> |
> | * checking compiled
On 05 Nov 2014, at 13:12 , Duncan Murdoch wrote:
>
> I don't think we should be removing tests for everybody to allow a few
> people to test a build of R that none of us actually use.
Yes. Having R pass "make check" while breaking recommended packages would be
unfortunate. I wouldn't object t
Dear,
I was expecting this reaction.
Please do not get caught up in the details of the examples,
which I have tried to make as simple as possible for your
benefit.
The main point is that if you remove the lines associated
with
boost/math/distributions/
the warning disappears as well. Ergo,
On 5 November 2014 at 00:55, kaveh wrote:
| Dear all,
|
|
| the simple code in below, when send to the
| win-builder returns the following (and no other)
| warning:
|
|
| * checking compiled code ... WARNING
| File 'quicky/libs/i386/quicky.dll':
|Found '_ZSt4cerr', possibly from 'std::cerr
On 05/11/2014, 6:48 AM, Martin Maechler wrote:
>> Duncan Murdoch
>> on Mon, 3 Nov 2014 06:28:19 -0500 writes:
>
> > On 03/11/2014, 4:17 AM, Martin Maechler wrote:
> >>> Duncan Murdoch
> >>> on Sat, 1 Nov 2014 13:17:56 -0400 writes:
> >>
> >> > On 01/11/20
> Duncan Murdoch
> on Mon, 3 Nov 2014 06:28:19 -0500 writes:
> On 03/11/2014, 4:17 AM, Martin Maechler wrote:
>>> Duncan Murdoch
>>> on Sat, 1 Nov 2014 13:17:56 -0400 writes:
>>
>> > On 01/11/2014, 11:33 AM, Peter Simons wrote:
>> >> Hi Uwe,
>> >>
The acf and ccf functions assume that time series are stationary, but yours are
not.
I think that your alternative function is not well founded. You take a separate
mean for each sub-series, which implicitly allows the mean of the series to
vary arbitrarily with time. However, you only have one
12 matches
Mail list logo
