My patch was not particularly great. I think the Peter's alternative
makes (more) sense.
-roger
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 8:47 AM, Peter Dalgaard wrote:
> Roger D. Peng wrote:
>> Hmm, I see what you mean, and I'd be willing to accept that logic if I
>> could find a single other instance in the R do
Roger D. Peng wrote:
> Hmm, I see what you mean, and I'd be willing to accept that logic if I
> could find a single other instance in the R documentation where that
> shorthand was used. But I suppose this might be the only instance
> where such a shorthand is necessary.
Could you repeat what the
Hmm, I see what you mean, and I'd be willing to accept that logic if I
could find a single other instance in the R documentation where that
shorthand was used. But I suppose this might be the only instance
where such a shorthand is necessary.
-roger
On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 9:30 PM, Kasper Daniel H
Roger
(I think) L is shorthand for some logical value, ie. TRUE or FALSE.
That has always been pretty clear to me. Your patch was stripped.
Kasper
On Mar 8, 2009, at 18:20 , Roger D. Peng wrote:
I've never quite understood the documentation for the 'all' argument
to 'merge'. I'm pretty sur
I've never quite understood the documentation for the 'all' argument
to 'merge'. I'm pretty sure using 'all = L' doesn't work but I'm open
to correction here. In any event, I've attached a patch.
-roger
--
Roger D. Peng | http://www.biostat.jhsph.edu/~rpeng/
___
