> I'm thinking (by now quite strongly) that there is a place
> in "Introduction to R" (and maybe other basic documentation)
> for an account of arithmetic precision in R (and in digital
> computation generally).
>
> A section "Arithmetic Precision in R" near the beginning
> would alert people to th
On 2/12/2008 1:16 PM, Bos, Roger wrote:
> I consider this a feature because when I am done testing the new
> version, I just delete the old directory. Deleting the directory is
> usually easier than uninstalling.
If you ran the installer with the default settings, just deleting the
old directory
On 2/12/2008 11:20 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Full_Name: Gerhard Thallinger
> Version: R 2.2.0 through R 2.6.2
> OS: Windows XP
> Submission from: (NULL) (129.27.145.220)
>
>
> The uninstall key in the Windows Registry
> (HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Uninstall\)
> is the sa
On Tue, 12 Feb 2008, Peter Dalgaard wrote:
> I stumbled on the following:
>
>> library(stats4)
>> example(mle)
>> confint.default(fit2)
> Error in UseMethod("vcov") : no applicable method for "vcov"
> In addition: Warning message:
> In object$coefficients :
> $ operator not defined for this S4 cl
I consider this a feature because when I am done testing the new
version, I just delete the old directory. Deleting the directory is
usually easier than uninstalling.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Duncan Murdoch
Sent: Tuesday, Februar
On 2/12/2008 1:02 PM, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
> On 2/12/2008 12:45 PM, Henrik Bengtsson wrote:
>> This is a beautiful example on how an added feature matures into a bug
>> over time :)
>>
>> I let the Windows developers argue with the pro's and con's of your
>> suggestion. I just wanna add a relate
I stumbled on the following:
> library(stats4)
> example(mle)
> confint.default(fit2)
Error in UseMethod("vcov") : no applicable method for "vcov"
In addition: Warning message:
In object$coefficients :
$ operator not defined for this S4 class, returning NULL
> vcov(fit2)
lymax
On 2/12/2008 12:45 PM, Henrik Bengtsson wrote:
> This is a beautiful example on how an added feature matures into a bug
> over time :)
>
> I let the Windows developers argue with the pro's and con's of your
> suggestion. I just wanna add a related suggestion that when you have
> multiple installa
I don't think that we need a full discussion in the Introduction, but
how about early on it shows an example of 2 floating point numbers not
being equal (and one of the work arounds like all.equal) along with a
note (bright, bold, etc.) that says that if the reader did not expect
the FALSE result t
This is a beautiful example on how an added feature matures into a bug
over time :)
I let the Windows developers argue with the pro's and con's of your
suggestion. I just wanna add a related suggestion that when you have
multiple installations and you run "Unistall R 2.6.0" the first dialog
('R f
On Tue, 12 Feb 2008, Oleg Sklyar wrote:
> Dear developers:
>
> I have just came across an (unexpected to me) behaviour of lists when
> assigning NULLs to list elements. I understand that a NULL is a valid R
> object, thus assigning a NULL to a list element should yield exactly the
> same result as
Full_Name: Gerhard Thallinger
Version: R 2.2.0 through R 2.6.2
OS: Windows XP
Submission from: (NULL) (129.27.145.220)
The uninstall key in the Windows Registry
(HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Uninstall\)
is the same ("R for Windows_is1") for all R versions
(at least from 2.2.0
>From your tone, I gather you don't much like this behavior, and I can see your
point, as it not very intuitive that setting a list element to NULL deletes
any existing element at that index. But is there a better way to delete an
element from a list? Maybe there should be.
Jeff
Prof Brian Rip
On 12-Feb-08 14:53:19, Gavin Simpson wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-02-12 at 15:35 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Dear developer,
>>
>> in my version of R (2.4.0) as weel as in a more recent version
>> (2.6.0) on different computers, we found this problem :
>
> No problem in R. This is the FAQ of all
:) It is a good idea, but i don't it would work. We'd have hundreds of
emails on R-help and R-devel complaining about mysterious warning
messages for code that had been working just fine for two years
Gabor
On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 11:13:36PM +0800, Berwin A Turlach wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Feb 20
On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 15:47:56 +0100
Gabor Csardi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> OMG, not again please!
>
> FAQ 7.31.
Yeah, there seems to be a cluster of that type of questions at the
moment.
Perhaps it is time to introduce a global option "HaveReadFAQ7.31" whose
default is "FALSE" but can be chan
Oleg Sklyar wrote:
> Dear developers:
>
> I have just came across an (unexpected to me) behaviour of lists when
> assigning NULLs to list elements. I understand that a NULL is a valid R
> object, thus assigning a NULL to a list element should yield exactly the
> same result as assigning any oth
On Tue, 2008-02-12 at 15:35 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Dear developer,
>
> in my version of R (2.4.0) as weel as in a more recent version (2.6.0)
> on different computers, we found this problem :
No problem in R. This is the FAQ of all FAQs (Type III SS is probably up
there as well).
See
OMG, not again please!
FAQ 7.31.
Thanks!
On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 03:35:09PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Dear developer,
>
> in my version of R (2.4.0) as weel as in a more recent version (2.6.0)
> on different computers, we found this problem :
>
> > a<-(58/40-1)
> > a
> [1] 0.45
> >
On 2/12/2008 9:35 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Dear developer,
>
> in my version of R (2.4.0) as weel as in a more recent version (2.6.0)
> on different computers, we found this problem :
This is not a bug, it's a limitation of finite precision arithmetic, and
it's FAQ 7.31.
Duncan Murdoch
On Tue, 12 Feb 2008, Oleg Sklyar wrote:
> Dear developers:
>
> I have just came across an (unexpected to me) behaviour of lists when
> assigning NULLs to list elements. I understand that a NULL is a valid R
> object, thus assigning a NULL to a list element should yield exactly the
> same result as
On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 11:06:59AM +, Oleg Sklyar wrote:
> Dear developers:
>
> I have just came across an (unexpected to me) behaviour of lists when
> assigning NULLs to list elements. I understand that a NULL is a valid R
> object, thus assigning a NULL to a list element should yield exact
Dear developers:
I have just came across an (unexpected to me) behaviour of lists when
assigning NULLs to list elements. I understand that a NULL is a valid R
object, thus assigning a NULL to a list element should yield exactly the
same result as assigning any other object. So I was surprised w
Dear developer,
in my version of R (2.4.0) as weel as in a more recent version (2.6.0)
on different computers, we found this problem :
> a<-(58/40-1)
> a
[1] 0.45
> b<-(18/40)
> b
[1] 0.45
> a a==b
[1] FALSE
>
Something seems wrong here.
but if we do
> c<-0.45
> d<-0.45
> chttp://www.s
24 matches
Mail list logo
