The survival package itself has a tiny list of reverse imports, so there is no
savings from avoiding the survival namespace. (I don’t have a choice: since
it is on the recommended list I can only depend on base and recommended. The
vignettes in particular would be nicer in knitr than Sweave…)
I wouldn't go so far as to call people who don't want to wholesale attach
namespaces as "nuts."
{survival} is provided via the {censored} R package to integrate into the
{tidymodels} ecosystem.
And the reverse imports of the package is massive! Assuming that each and
every one of them
should attac
Hi Ben / All,
It turned out to be the most basic - I found message from CRAN in the junk
email folder (we have emails on MicroSoft server from which I still received
the confirmation in Inbox!). As expected, I can see from foghorn,
> cran_incoming()
# A tibble: 108 � 5
package versio
Thanks to all for the responses. A couple notes It is nice to get the overall
feedback
that I'm not nuts to be terribly annoyed by this, and don't need to fix it
tomorrow.
Berwin 's note brings to mind the old adage that "The reason it is so hard to
make things
foolproof is that fools are so
On 2024-08-26 12:34 p.m., Duncan Murdoch wrote:
On 2024-08-26 10:42 a.m., Therneau, Terry M., Ph.D. via R-devel wrote:
The survival package makes significant use of the "specials" argument of
terms(), before
calling model.frame; it is part of nearly every modeling function. The reason
is that
В Mon, 26 Aug 2024 09:42:10 -0500
"Therneau, Terry M., Ph.D. via R-devel" пишет:
> For instance
> fit <- survival::survdiff( survival::Surv(time, status) ~
> ph.karno + survival::strata(inst), data= survival::lung)
>
> This fails to give the correct answer because it fools terms(formula,
One could define a function that removes all instances of 'survival::' from
an expression, returning the fixed up expression, and applying it to all
formulae given as arguments to your survival functions. E.g.,
removeDoubleColonSurvival <- function (formula)
{
doubleColon <- as.name("::")
sur
On 2024-08-26 10:42 a.m., Therneau, Terry M., Ph.D. via R-devel wrote:
The survival package makes significant use of the "specials" argument of
terms(), before
calling model.frame; it is part of nearly every modeling function. The reason
is that
strata argments simply have to be handled differe
On 2024-08-26 12:26 p.m., Chris Black wrote:
It’s completely reasonable to decline to do extra work to support it, but at
the same time: Qualified calls are widely used and recommended, and users are
also being completely reasonable when they try to use them (probably without
checking the manu
G'day Terry,
On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 09:42:10 -0500
"Therneau, Terry M., Ph.D. via R-devel" wrote:
[...]
> I now get "bug reports" from the growing segment that believes one
> should put packagename:: in front of every single instance.
[...]
> What are other's thoughts?
Not that I want to start a
It’s completely reasonable to decline to do extra work to support it, but at
the same time: Qualified calls are widely used and recommended, and users are
also being completely reasonable when they try to use them (probably without
checking the manual!) and expect them to work.
Would there be a
G'day Terry,
On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 09:42:10 -0500
"Therneau, Terry M., Ph.D. via R-devel" wrote:
[...]
> I now get "bug reports" from the growing segment that believes one
> should put packagename:: in front of every single instance.
[...]
> What are other's thoughts?
Not that I want to start a
I know I'm a curmudgeon, but it seems to me that if their "company
policy" is causing a problem while trying to use free software, then the
company should pay to fix it.
Kevin
On 8/26/2024 10:42 AM, Therneau, Terry M., Ph.D. via R-devel wrote:
The survival package makes significant use of t
The survival package makes significant use of the "specials" argument of
terms(), before
calling model.frame; it is part of nearly every modeling function. The reason
is that
strata argments simply have to be handled differently than other things on the
right hand
side. Likewise for tt() and
Thanks for the suggestion - I gather I might have done something wrong , since
I can see,
>cran_incoming() |> data.frame()
package version cran_foldertime size
1 ghyp1.6.5 pretest 2024-08-26 12:54:00 1.8M
...
It is nice to know
Try the foghorn package for checking the status of your submission in the
CRAN queue?
On Mon, Aug 26, 2024, 4:46 AM jing hua zhao wrote:
> Dear CRAN / All,
>
> I appeared not to receive any email notification after upload a package
> update (to furnish the confirmation) -- is the system down?
>
Dear CRAN / All,
I appeared not to receive any email notification after upload a package update
(to furnish the confirmation) -- is the system down?
Many thanks,
Jing Hua
__
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r
17 matches
Mail list logo
