Prof Brian Ripley wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Aug 2005, Henrik Bengtsson wrote:
>
>> When parse():ing R code from *file* with a unclosed string, that is, a
>> string that has an open quoation mark, but not a ending one, the string
>> seems to be closed automagically. Is this a "bug"?
>
>
> It's clearly
Full_Name: Jan Bentlage
Version: 2.1.1
OS: Windows
Submission from: (NULL) (212.62.93.226)
I loaded a huge database (textfile, semikolon seperated) by read.csv2. The data
already appeared in the list (by ls()). When I want to view the data in the
editor, R completly crashes.
This is probably a bug in the editor, but you have given us no way to
reproduce it. Please see the posting guide and FAQ and give us a
reproducible example.
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Full_Name: Jan Bentlage
> Version: 2.1.1
> OS: Windows
> Submission from: (NULL) (212.62.9
Full_Name: Knut krueger
Version: 2.1.1
OS: xp Home
Submission from: (NULL) (149.225.134.34)
In the png function the value res seems to be inactive:
bmp(filename = "c:/r/Rplot%03d.bmp", width = 1920, height = 1920, pointsize =
48, bg = "white", res = 2400)
result:
witdh/heigth = 1920 <> 20.32
Where did you get `result' from? (What program spells that badly and
where does ppi come from?)
Your last example gives for me (using ImageMagick)
identify -format "%wx%h res: %x" Rplot001.png
1920x1920 res: 944.88 PixelsPerCentimeter
which is correct.
I believe it is your PNG reader that is
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Full_Name: Jan Bentlage
> Version: 2.1.1
> OS: Windows
> Submission from: (NULL) (212.62.93.226)
>
>
> I loaded a huge database (textfile, semikolon seperated) by read.csv2. The
> data
> already appeared in the list (by ls()). When I want to view the data in the
> edit
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005, Prof Brian Ripley wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Aug 2005, Paul Roebuck wrote:
>
> >> It is equivalent to 'evalq' except the its default
>
> It would be easier to deal with thes reports if in future you
> could provide a patch against the source file (here eval.Rd).
I normally download
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005, Paul Roebuck wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Aug 2005, Prof Brian Ripley wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 14 Aug 2005, Paul Roebuck wrote:
>>
It is equivalent to 'evalq' except the its default
>>
>> It would be easier to deal with thes reports if in future you
>> could provide a patch against the
