On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 01:37:46PM +0100, Petr Savicky wrote:
> I would like to add some more information concerning the patch C
> to the function choose() proposed in the email
> https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-devel/2009-December/056177.html
>
> The patch uses transformations of choose(n, k),
I would like to add some more information concerning the patch C
to the function choose() proposed in the email
https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-devel/2009-December/056177.html
The patch uses transformations of choose(n, k), which are described in
http://www.cs.cas.cz/~savicky/R-devel/formulas
In a previous email, i suggested two patches A and B to choose(n, k), which
solve some of its problems, but keep some of the inaccuracies of the original
implementation. I would like to suggest another patch, which i will call C
(patch-C.txt in an attachment), which eliminates the warnings obtained
On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 10:02:49PM +0100, Martin Maechler wrote:
[...]
> Have you tried 'make check-devel' (or 'check-all') also with the
> progressive change?
The patch-B.txt from my previous email passed "make check-all" with the
exception of the Tcl/Tk support, which is missing on my computer.
On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 10:02:49PM +0100, Martin Maechler wrote:
> {I've changed the subject; it's really no longer about
> lchoose()'s definition}
>
[...]
>
> Thanks a lot, Petr, for your explorations.
> I agree that at least something like your conservative change
> should
{I've changed the subject; it's really no longer about
lchoose()'s definition}
> Petr Savicky
> on Fri, 18 Dec 2009 00:14:49 +0100 writes:
> On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 03:10:49PM +0100, Martin Maechler wrote:
> [...]
MM> This, of course, is an even more compelling reason t
