Re: [Rd] shash in unique.c

On 3/5/10 4:40 AM, Matthew Dowle wrote: Thanks a lot. Quick and brief responses below... "Duncan Murdoch" wrote in message news:4b90f134.6070...@stats.uwo.ca... Matthew Dowle wrote: I was hoping for a 'yes', 'no', 'maybe' or 'bad idea because ...'. No response resulted in a retry() after a S

Re: [Rd] shash in unique.c

Thanks a lot. Quick and brief responses below... "Duncan Murdoch" wrote in message news:4b90f134.6070...@stats.uwo.ca... > Matthew Dowle wrote: >> I was hoping for a 'yes', 'no', 'maybe' or 'bad idea because ...'. No >> response resulted in a retry() after a Sys.sleep(10 days). >> >> If its a

Re: [Rd] shash in unique.c

Matthew Dowle wrote: I was hoping for a 'yes', 'no', 'maybe' or 'bad idea because ...'. No response resulted in a retry() after a Sys.sleep(10 days). If its a "yes" or "maybe" then I could proceed to try it, test it, and present the test results and timings to you along with the patch. It wou

Re: [Rd] shash in unique.c

I was hoping for a 'yes', 'no', 'maybe' or 'bad idea because ...'. No response resulted in a retry() after a Sys.sleep(10 days). If its a "yes" or "maybe" then I could proceed to try it, test it, and present the test results and timings to you along with the patch. It would be on 32bit Ubuntu

[Rd] shash in unique.c

Looking at shash in unique.c, from R-2.10.1 I'm wondering if it makes sense to hash the pointer itself rather than the string it points to? In other words could the SEXP pointer be cast to unsigned int and the usual scatter be called on that as if it were integer? shash would look like a sligh