[Sorry for my previous empty post]
Dirk Eddelbuettel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 14 July 2006 at 14:38, Sebastian Luque wrote:
> | If Gabor's recommendations are to be followed, wouldn't it make sense
> | to include chron in base R? Given that flexibility fo
Dirk Eddelbuettel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 14 July 2006 at 14:38, Sebastian Luque wrote:
| If Gabor's recommendations are to be followed, wouldn't it make sense to
| include chron in base R? Given that flexibility for handling time
Future historians will provide a fulle
Hi,
One of the big decisions when writing code is how to handle dates and
times. Gabor Grothendieck provided an excellent overview of the issue in
his R News 4/1 (2004) article, and many users and developers are probably
using it as a guide. The proposed guideline is to use the simplest class
re
John Chambers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There's nothing bad happening, and we should remove the setIs() example
> from the setClass() documentation.
> If you run example(setIs), you will see a slightly different version of
> the same call to setIs(), but one that does not generate the warning
Hello,
Below is what I got running the examples from `setClass'. Could somebody
please help explain why the last `setIs' call is returning the warning and
whether this is expected?
R> setClass("track",
+ representation(x="numeric", y="numeric"))
[1] "track"
R> setClass("
