On 12/30/2005 10:10 PM, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
> In ?xy.coords it says:
>
> If 'y' is missing and 'x' is a
>
> formula: of the form 'yvar ~ xvar'. 'xvar' and 'yvar' are used as
> x and y variables.
>
> list: containing components 'x' and 'y', these are used to define
It could be changed to missing(y) || is.null(y) and the docs amended.
That way existing code will continue to work and code that otherwise
gives an error currently, but should have worked, will now work too.
On 12/31/05, Duncan Murdoch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 12/30/2005 10:10 PM, Gabor Gro
On 12/31/2005 8:57 AM, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
> It could be changed to missing(y) || is.null(y) and the docs amended.
> That way existing code will continue to work and code that otherwise
> gives an error currently, but should have worked, will now work too.
Can you give an example where you w
I think the point is that (1) it does not work as documented and (2) in
most functions one can omit unnecessary args without having
to specify NULL so its behvaior seems inconsistent from a design
viewpoint. By allowing either missing or NULL it will work as documented,
and probably intended, yet
On 12/31/2005 12:21 PM, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
> I think the point is that (1) it does not work as documented and (2) in
> most functions one can omit unnecessary args without having
> to specify NULL so its behvaior seems inconsistent from a design
> viewpoint. By allowing either missing or NU
It does not achieve design consistency. One would have to
specify NULL but that should not really be necessary.
On 12/31/05, Duncan Murdoch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 12/31/2005 12:21 PM, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
> > I think the point is that (1) it does not work as documented and (2) in
>
On 12/31/2005 12:57 PM, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
> It does not achieve design consistency.
It's consistent with the way it has been for at least 7 years, and is
consistent with xyz.coords().
One would have to
> specify NULL but that should not really be necessary.
In fact, one almost never n
Recent simulation findings reveal that permutation tests are more powerful
than ANOV when data are drawn from non-normal populations such as mixtures
of normals or Weibull distributions. I would like to offer my code in
package form and am looking for a collaborator who will:
a. verify results
I think this is just playng with words. The fact that its always been
like that is not sufficient and is not related to consistency.
xyz.coords also does not work in accordance with the help file
so the fact that the error extends to it just means they are both
in error.
Modularity means loose co
On 12/31/2005 3:26 PM, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
> I think this is just playng with words.
I'm starting to be convinced of that by the fact that you haven't posted
any sample code where using a single parameter would be desirable.
The fact that its always been
> like that is not sufficient and
Just wanted to point out to anyone trying to write Windows
batch files that the new R-whatever folder names bring out
a bug in Windows batch files related to short file names.
In particular, this code (which is to the best of my understanding,
valid) gives an error. The solution appears to be to u
On 12/31/2005 3:59 PM, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
> Just wanted to point out to anyone trying to write Windows
> batch files that the new R-whatever folder names bring out
> a bug in Windows batch files related to short file names.
>
> In particular, this code (which is to the best of my understand
On 12/31/05, Duncan Murdoch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 12/31/2005 3:26 PM, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
> > I think this is just playng with words.
>
> I'm starting to be convinced of that by the fact that you haven't posted
> any sample code where using a single parameter would be desirable.
Lo
Although I independently discovered this bug; its apparently
well known to the experts. I asked about it on the batch
newsgroup and those knowledgable on this immediately identified
it as such. I think all one can do is work around it.
On 12/31/05, Duncan Murdoch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On
14 matches
Mail list logo
