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
