Thanks Marc,
It used to be the case that the NA count was stored as a 7th element of the
Fivenum+mean summary. This had the side effect that the NAs were displayed
using the same format as the other numbers, which was sort of OK for numerics
(3.00) but not for class Date (1970-01-04 for three m
Hi all,
Based upon an exchange with Göran Broström on R-Help today:
https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-help/2016-February/435992.html
there appears to be a bug in summary.data.frame() in the case where a data
frame contains Date class columns that contain NA's and other columns, if
present, do
Hi,
Both vapply() and sapply() support the 'USE.NAMES' argument. According
to the man page:
USE.NAMES: logical; if ‘TRUE’ and if ‘X’ is character, use ‘X’ as
‘names’ for the result unless it had names already.
But if 'X' has names already and 'USE.NAMES' is FALSE, it's not clear
w
On 08 Feb 2016, at 18:34 , frede...@ofb.net wrote:
> Ah, thank you for that explanation. I somehow didn't catch that my
> Bugzilla account had been disabled by a human.
I like the notion that a somewhat rude message is ameliorated by the knowledge
that it was put there by a chronically annoyed
Ah, thank you for that explanation. I somehow didn't catch that my
Bugzilla account had been disabled by a human.
"Common pattern is to post ... something copied from a generic bug
report" - that sounds very annoying.
Frederick
On Sun, Feb 07, 2016 at 11:54:11AM +0100, peter dalgaard wrote:
> Un
On 08.02.2016 16:19, peter dalgaard wrote:
Quite possibly, I should keep my big mouth shut and let the CRAN'ers answer
this, but at face value, you submit a new version and are asked to confirm that
problems with the previous version are fixed; isn't that as it should be?
From a CRAN'ers po
Paul, I think it is working as intended / you are seeing correct i nfo. They
are just trying to make sure you have fixed any problems in your previous
package (that is now be being built with a newer R, so problems show up that
weren’t there when you originallly submitted the previous version).
Quite possibly, I should keep my big mouth shut and let the CRAN'ers answer
this, but at face value, you submit a new version and are asked to confirm that
problems with the previous version are fixed; isn't that as it should be?
-pd
On 08 Feb 2016, at 16:10 , Paul Johnson wrote:
> Yesterday
Yesterday I uploaded new rockchalk_1.8.97. Then I received email
saying that I needed to confirm the submission. Here's the message.
Dear Paul E. Johnson
Someone has submitted the package rockchalk to CRAN.
You are receiving this email to confirm the submission as the maintainer of
this package.
