Gabor Grothendieck writes:
> On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Vitalie S. wrote:
>>
>> Hello everyone!
>>
>> Motivated by the recent post on SO
>>
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4730551/making-a-string-concatenation-operator-in-r>
>> I wonder what is the current state of argument on making
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 6:56 AM, Vitalie S. wrote:
> Gabor Grothendieck writes:
>
>> On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Vitalie S. wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello everyone!
>>>
>>> Motivated by the recent post on SO
>>>
>> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4730551/making-a-string-concatenation-operator-in-r
Request: An additional hook in plot.new() that is called prior to the call to
.Internal(plot.new()).
Reason: To allow the hook to set up or modify a graphics device that the new
plot will appear in.
The code change needed for this is simple - just 4 new lines of R code in
src/library/graphics/
> Yet another useful suggestion of introducing cat0() and paste0(), for
> the common use of cat and paste with sep="" was not absorbed by the
> core R either.
stringr has str_c which is a replacement for paste with sep = "" and
automatic removal of length 0 inputs.
Hadley
--
Assistant Professo
On Jan 22, 2011, at 21:08 , Vitalie S. wrote:
> The only definite argument occurred in the thread against "+" operator
> was the lack of commutativity (as if one have to prove algebraic
> theorems in R).
I think the real killer was associativity, combined with coercion rules:
Is "x"+1+2 suppos
Consider the following from Python 2.6.5:
>>> 'abc'+ 2
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "", line 1, in
'abc'+ 2
TypeError: cannot concatenate 'str' and 'int' objects
>>> 'abc'+'2'
'abc2'
>>>
Spencer
On 1/23/2011 8:09 AM, Hadley Wickham wrote:
Yet another useful suggesti
On 1/23/2011 8:50 AM, peter dalgaard wrote:
On Jan 22, 2011, at 21:08 , Vitalie S. wrote:
The only definite argument occurred in the thread against "+" operator
was the lack of commutativity (as if one have to prove algebraic
theorems in R).
I think the real killer was associativity, combined
On 23/01/2011 11:50 AM, peter dalgaard wrote:
On Jan 22, 2011, at 21:08 , Vitalie S. wrote:
The only definite argument occurred in the thread against "+" operator
was the lack of commutativity (as if one have to prove algebraic
theorems in R).
I think the real killer was associativity, combi
Hi Tony,
On Sunday 23 January 2011, you wrote:
> Request: An additional hook in plot.new() that is called prior to the call
> to .Internal(plot.new()). Reason: To allow the hook to set up or modify a
> graphics device that the new plot will appear in.
for what it's worth, you can work around the
On Jan 21, 2011, at 10:57 AM, Prof Brian Ripley wrote:
> There is no support for files in alternative encodings in RGui's menus: not
> to source files nor to load into a pager or the script editor. (I believe
> all of those long predate any support for encodings in R.)
>
> Such provision is ra
On Jan 23, 2011, at 10:44 AM, Tony Plate wrote:
> Request: An additional hook in plot.new() that is called prior to the call to
> .Internal(plot.new()).
> Reason: To allow the hook to set up or modify a graphics device that the new
> plot will appear in.
>
> The code change needed for this is
Dear list,
I was wondering if it is possible to create and use a package namespace at
the development stage of a package. To clarify, I would like to make sure
that my package functions (and not some other functions that happen to have
identical names) are called by prepending function names appro
Spencer Graves writes:
> On 1/23/2011 8:50 AM, peter dalgaard wrote:
>> On Jan 22, 2011, at 21:08 , Vitalie S. wrote:
>>
>>> The only definite argument occurred in the thread against "+" operator
>>> was the lack of commutativity (as if one have to prove algebraic
>>> theorems in R).
>> I think t
On 1/23/2011 12:15 PM, Vitalie S. wrote:
Spencer Graves writes:
On 1/23/2011 8:50 AM, peter dalgaard wrote:
On Jan 22, 2011, at 21:08 , Vitalie S. wrote:
The only definite argument occurred in the thread against "+" operator
was the lack of commutativity (as if one have to prove algebraic
14 matches
Mail list logo
