On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 2:45 AM, Sean O'Riordain wrote:
> Good morning Dominick,
>
> I don't use the Rcpp package and have only the vaguest notions of its
> history.
>
> One of your requests is that your name might be removed from the project as
> you no longer wish to be associated with it. Howe
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 2:51 AM, Gavin Simpson wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 20:24 -0500, Dominick Samperi wrote:
>
> > > Just to be clear I have never used the package and am not truly
> > > commenting on this particular case but only the general ideas in this
> > > thread. Also I was not sugge
Dear all
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 7:21 PM, Dominick Samperi wrote:
> The author line of the latest release of the R package
> Rcpp (0.8.9) was revised as follows:
>
> From: "based on code written during 2005 and 2006 by Dominick Samperi"
>
> To: "a small portion of the code is based on code written
Dear Dominick,
The R community does not have a conflict resolution mechanism. We are
quite used to disputes that end with one party, usually a recognized
authority, saying "No, you are objectively, verifiably wrong". We
cannot, as a group, deal with anything else.
Everybody knows that you have
On 12/2/2010 6:20 AM, Martyn Plummer wrote:
Dear Dominick,
The R community does not have a conflict resolution mechanism. We are
quite used to disputes that end with one party, usually a recognized
authority, saying "No, you are objectively, verifiably wrong". We
cannot, as a group, deal with
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 9:20 AM, Martyn Plummer wrote:
> Dear Dominick,
>
> The R community does not have a conflict resolution mechanism. We are
> quite used to disputes that end with one party, usually a recognized
> authority, saying "No, you are objectively, verifiably wrong". We
> cannot,
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 10:21 AM, Spencer Graves <
spencer.gra...@structuremonitoring.com> wrote:
> On 12/2/2010 6:20 AM, Martyn Plummer wrote:
>
>> Dear Dominick,
>>
>> The R community does not have a conflict resolution mechanism. We are
>> quite used to disputes that end with one party, usually
Yes, I agree, Spencer. The worst thing that can happen is for your
ideas/creations to go completely unnoticed.
Here is what David Hume had to say about how his first philosophical work
(Treatise of Human Nature) was received:
"Never literary attempt was more unfortunate than my Treatise of Human
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 4:31 PM, Dominick Samperi wrote:
>
> Worst yet is having to compete with your own work.
>
About which competition are we talking then? I'm sorry, but the vast
majority of the 7 lines of code of the rcpp are not your work. And
honestly, I don't know of any package that wo
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 10:47 AM, Joris Meys wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 4:31 PM, Dominick Samperi
> wrote:
> >
> > Worst yet is having to compete with your own work.
> >
> About which competition are we talking then? I'm sorry, but the vast
> majority of the 7 lines of code of the rcpp a
Your original question is predicated on the notion that people are
"disseminating misleading information about" you, with this phrase: "a
small portion of the code is based on code written during 2005 and
2006 by Dominick Samperi". While it may be difficult to qualify
contributions to a joint proj
> Dominick Samperi
> on Thu, 2 Dec 2010 03:27:58 -0500 writes:
> On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 2:51 AM, Gavin Simpson
wrote:
>> On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 20:24 -0500, Dominick Samperi wrote:
>>
>> > > Just to be clear I have never used the package and am not truly
>> > > co
On Dec 2, 2010, at 15:20 , Martyn Plummer wrote:
> Everybody knows that you have an acrimonious relationship with the
> current developers of Rcpp (and if they don't then a cursory look at the
> rcpp-devel archives will confirm this). The issue of the acknowledgment
> that you are complaining ab
On 12/02/2010 10:32 AM, Liviu Andronic wrote:
Dear all
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 7:21 PM, Dominick Samperi wrote:
The author line of the latest release of the R package
Rcpp (0.8.9) was revised as follows:
From: "based on code written during 2005 and 2006 by Dominick Samperi"
To: "a small porti
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 11:24 AM, Claudia Beleites wrote:
> On 12/02/2010 10:32 AM, Liviu Andronic wrote:
>>
>> Dear all
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 7:21 PM, Dominick Samperi
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> The author line of the latest release of the R package
>>> Rcpp (0.8.9) was revised as follows:
>>>
>>>
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 12:29 PM, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 11:24 AM, Claudia Beleites
> wrote:
> > On 12/02/2010 10:32 AM, Liviu Andronic wrote:
> >>
> >> Dear all
> >>
> >> On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 7:21 PM, Dominick Samperi
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> The author line of the
Prof. Ripley,
I've just done the installation of the R package 'Matrix' to my 64-bit R
2.12.0, and it is loaded fine. Seems adding -m64 to the CXX line solved the
problem.
I had,
CC="cc -xc99 -m64 -xarch=sparcvis2"
CXX="CC -library=stlport4"
And now I have (the working version),
CC="cc -xc
On Wed, 2010-11-24 at 12:12 -0500, ivo welch wrote:
> I just figured out what is happening. The root drive (presumably OSX
> virtual memory) becomes depleted. The error message about "memory not
> mapped" was a hint, too. So, not really R's fault. However, I wonder
It still may be R's fault.
There are repeated claims concerning a "Rcpp fork". Let's address both terms
in turn.
i) Rcpp was used in November 2008 as the name for a re-launch of a package
which had seen releases on CRAN in 2005/2006 during which it was also
renamed to RcppTemplate. Hence no package of name Rcpp h
Matt,
please use
R -d gdb
and then "bt" for a more useful trace.
Thanks,
Simon
On Dec 2, 2010, at 4:06 PM, Matt Shotwell wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-11-24 at 12:12 -0500, ivo welch wrote:
>> I just figured out what is happening. The root drive (presumably OSX
>> virtual memory) becomes depleted.
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 4:35 PM, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
>
> There are repeated claims concerning a "Rcpp fork". Let's address both
> terms
> in turn.
>
> i) Rcpp was used in November 2008 as the name for a re-launch of a package
>which had seen releases on CRAN in 2005/2006 during which it
While we are on the subject of terminology, it is important to remember
that Rcpp is a C++ library, and this is often confused with Rcpp the
package. I changed the package name to limit confusion on this
point, but the package name was changed back to Rcpp for the "fork" (or
"branch", not sure what
On 2 December 2010 at 17:23, Dominick Samperi wrote:
| OK, since you are so accomodating, then please remove all reference to
| my name from Rcpp as I do not want to be subject to arbitrary revisions of
| my status. I may not have the right to say how my prior work will be used,
| but I think I ha
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 5:58 PM, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
>
> On 2 December 2010 at 17:23, Dominick Samperi wrote:
> | OK, since you are so accomodating, then please remove all reference to
> | my name from Rcpp as I do not want to be subject to arbitrary revisions
> of
> | my status. I may not ha
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 5:58 PM, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
>
> On 2 December 2010 at 17:23, Dominick Samperi wrote:
> | OK, since you are so accomodating, then please remove all reference to
> | my name from Rcpp as I do not want to be subject to arbitrary revisions
> of
> | my status. I may not ha
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 12:38 AM, Dominick Samperi wrote:
> We? Romain did not arrive on the scene until after November of 2009.
>
> To live outside the law you must be honest --- Bob Dylan.
>
> [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
>
Peter Dalgaard and Martin Maechler were pretty clear if y
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 6:43 PM, Joris Meys wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 12:38 AM, Dominick Samperi
> wrote:
>
> > We? Romain did not arrive on the scene until after November of 2009.
> >
> > To live outside the law you must be honest --- Bob Dylan.
> >
> >[[alternative HTML version de
27 matches
Mail list logo
