> "RobMcG" == McGehee, Robert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> on Tue, 29 Jul 2008 15:40:37 -0400 writes:
RobMcG> FYI,
RobMcG> I've tried posting the below message twice to the bug tracking
system,
[... r-bugs problems discussed in a separate thread ]
RobMcG> R-devel
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008, Martin Maechler wrote:
>> "RobMcG" == McGehee, Robert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> on Tue, 29 Jul 2008 15:40:37 -0400 writes:
>
>RobMcG> FYI,
>RobMcG> I've tried posting the below message twice to the bug tracking
> system,
>
>[... r-bugs problems discus
FYI,=20
I've tried posting the below message twice to the bug tracking system,
once by email (below), and the second time 5 days later directly to the
bugs.r-project.org website. As far as I can tell, the bug tracking
system hasn't picked this up. Also it looks like the latest "incoming"
bug is dat
For the record: this is now fixed.
On Thu, 7 Aug 2008,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
R-developers,
The results below are inconsistent. From the documentation for
is.numeric, I expect FALSE in both cases.
x <- data.frame(dt=3DSys.Date())
is.numeric(x$dt)
[1] FALSE
sapply(x, is.numeric)
dt
TRU
For the record: this is now fixed.
On Thu, 7 Aug 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Full_Name: Robert McGehee
Version: 2.7.1
OS: Windows
Submission from: (NULL) (192.223.226.6)
R-developers,
The results below seem inconsistent. From the documentation for is.numeric, I
expect FALSE in both cases.
R-developers,
The results below are inconsistent. From the documentation for
is.numeric, I expect FALSE in both cases.
> x <- data.frame(dt=3DSys.Date())
> is.numeric(x$dt)
[1] FALSE
> sapply(x, is.numeric)
dt
TRUE
## Yet, sapply seems aware of the Date class
> sapply(x, class)
dt
"Date"
Tha
Full_Name: Robert McGehee
Version: 2.7.1
OS: Windows
Submission from: (NULL) (192.223.226.6)
R-developers,
The results below seem inconsistent. From the documentation for is.numeric, I
expect FALSE in both cases.
> x <- data.frame(dt=Sys.Date())
> is.numeric(x$dt)
[1] FALSE
> sapply(x, is.numeri
> "PBR" == Prof Brian Ripley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> on Thu, 31 Jul 2008 08:36:22 +0100 (BST) writes:
PBR> I've now committed fixes in R-patched and R-devel.
PBR> There is one consequence: data.matrix() was testing for numeric
columns by
PBR> unlist(lapply(x, is.numeric)) a
I've now committed fixes in R-patched and R-devel.
There is one consequence: data.matrix() was testing for numeric columns by
unlist(lapply(x, is.numeric)) and so incorrectly treating Date and POSIXct
columns as numeric (which we had decided they were not). This affects
package gvlma.
data.
> "BDR" == Prof Brian Ripley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> on Wed, 30 Jul 2008 13:29:38 +0100 (BST) writes:
BDR> On Wed, 30 Jul 2008, Martin Maechler wrote:
>>> "RobMcG" == McGehee, Robert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> on Tue, 29 Jul 2008 15:40:37 -0400 writes:
>>
RobMcG
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008, Martin Maechler wrote:
"RobMcG" == McGehee, Robert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
on Tue, 29 Jul 2008 15:40:37 -0400 writes:
RobMcG> FYI,
RobMcG> I've tried posting the below message twice to the bug tracking
system,
[... r-bugs problems discussed in a separate thr
Try this workaround
sapply(x, function(x) is.numeric(x))
dt
FALSE
is.numeric is primitive, and primitive functions don't always play well
with [sl]apply.
On Tue, 29 Jul 2008, McGehee, Robert wrote:
FYI,
I've tried posting the below message twice to the bug tracking system,
once by emai
> "RobMcG" == McGehee, Robert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> on Tue, 29 Jul 2008 15:40:37 -0400 writes:
RobMcG> FYI,
RobMcG> I've tried posting the below message twice to the bug tracking
system,
[... r-bugs problems discussed in a separate thread ]
RobMcG> R-devel
FYI,
I've tried posting the below message twice to the bug tracking system,
once by email (below), and the second time 5 days later directly to the
bugs.r-project.org website. As far as I can tell, the bug tracking
system hasn't picked this up. Also it looks like the latest "incoming"
bug is dated
14 matches
Mail list logo