This (tangential) discussion really should be a separate thread so I
changed the subject line above.
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 11:51:00AM -0500, Simon Urbanek wrote:
> Subject: Re: [Rd] (PR#13487) Segfault when mistakenly calling [.data.frame
> >My boss was debugging an issue in our R code. We hav
On 31/01/2009 7:31 AM, Andrew Piskorski wrote:
This (tangential) discussion really should be a separate thread so I
changed the subject line above.
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 11:51:00AM -0500, Simon Urbanek wrote:
Subject: Re: [Rd] (PR#13487) Segfault when mistakenly calling [.data.frame
My bos
Hi Dirk,
* On 2009-01-30 at 22:38 -0600 Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> Turns out, as so often, that there was a regular bug lurking which is now
> fixed in RDieHarder 0.1.1. But I still would like to understand exactly what
> is different so that --slave was able to trigger it when --vanilla,
> --no-
Duncan Murdoch wrote:
On 31/01/2009 7:31 AM, Andrew Piskorski wrote:
This (tangential) discussion really should be a separate thread so I
changed the subject line above.
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 11:51:00AM -0500, Simon Urbanek wrote:
Subject: Re: [Rd] (PR#13487) Segfault when mistakenly calling
Hi Seth,
Thanks for the follow-up.
On 31 January 2009 at 06:59, Seth Falcon wrote:
| * On 2009-01-30 at 22:38 -0600 Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| > Turns out, as so often, that there was a regular bug lurking which is now
| > fixed in RDieHarder 0.1.1. But I still would like to understand exactly
Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
Hi Seth,
Thanks for the follow-up.
On 31 January 2009 at 06:59, Seth Falcon wrote:
| * On 2009-01-30 at 22:38 -0600 Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| > Turns out, as so often, that there was a regular bug lurking which is now
| > fixed in RDieHarder 0.1.1. But I still would l
* On 2009-01-31 at 09:34 -0600 Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> | Without telling us any details about the nature of the bug you found,
> | it is difficult to speculate. If the bug was in your C code and
> | memory related, it could simply be that the two different run paths
> | resulted in different al
Hi Peter,
On 31 January 2009 at 16:55, Peter Dalgaard wrote:
| Not really (and you know where to find the sources...).
Yes, and I had dug through that in the past for littler and other embedding
work. I was just wondering if I had missed any documentation, besides the
few lines about --slave fr
On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 10:13 AM, Peter Dalgaard
wrote:
> Duncan Murdoch wrote:
>
>> On 31/01/2009 7:31 AM, Andrew Piskorski wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 11:51:00AM -0500, Simon Urbanek wrote:
>>>
Subject: Re: [Rd] (PR#13487) Segfault when mistakenly calling
[.data.frame
>>
Christian Brechbühler wrote:
>
>>> data.frame(val=1:3,row.names=letters[1:3])[,1]
>>>
>> [1] 1 2 3
>>
>> but it's not obvious that the result should be named using the row.names
>> and (in particular) whether or why it should differ from .[[1]] and
>> $val.
this might be a good a
The revisions below have been re-committed (r47803), and appear to be
compatible with the current Matrix package ('0.999375-19'). Thanks to
Martin Maechler for help with Matrix.
John Chambers wrote:
A recently committed revison of R-devel (47740) has introduced a new
mechanism for ordering su
On 31/01/2009 3:26 PM, Christian Brechbühler wrote:
On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 10:13 AM, Peter Dalgaard
wrote:
Duncan Murdoch wrote:
On 31/01/2009 7:31 AM, Andrew Piskorski wrote:
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 11:51:00AM -0500, Simon Urbanek wrote:
Subject: Re: [Rd] (PR#13487) Segfault when mistak
12 matches
Mail list logo
