> On 9 Jan 2025, at 05:56, Tomas Kalibera wrote:
>
>
> On 1/8/25 17:26, Ben Bolker wrote:
>> Thanks, that makes sense.
>>
>> I guess if it never worked for integers (or hasn't worked in a long time,
>> at least) then it doesn't need to be fixed/changed ...
>
> Still you found out that th
On 1/8/25 17:26, Ben Bolker wrote:
Thanks, that makes sense.
I guess if it never worked for integers (or hasn't worked in a long
time, at least) then it doesn't need to be fixed/changed ...
Still you found out that the type check and use of REAL() in the
function is in wrong order. Inste
Thanks, that makes sense.
I guess if it never worked for integers (or hasn't worked in a long
time, at least) then it doesn't need to be fixed/changed ...
cheers
Ben
On 2025-01-08 11:20 a.m., Ivan Krylov wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 10:57:47 -0500
Ben Bolker wrote:
I haven't done t
On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 10:57:47 -0500
Ben Bolker wrote:
> I haven't done the archaeology to figure out when this broke/exactly
> what change in the R code base broke it: it happened within the last
> month or so
binomial() itself exhibits this property even in R-4.2.2 from more than
two years ago:
As of r87537, binomial()$linkinv no longer accepts integer arguments.
binomial()$linkinv(1.0) ## 0.7310586
binomial()$linkinv(1L)
Error in binomial()$linkinv(1L) :
REAL() can only be applied to a 'numeric', not a 'integer'
Since R is usually so permissive/sloppy with the distinction betw
