I am still an avid user of R base plotting and fortunately so are a lot of
the interesting packages I use.
However, to this day, I am still annoyed by the fact that many functions do
not support the "add" parameter.
In many cases, this is caused by xy.plot not supporting it (because the
parame
Dear R-Devel subscriber,
I would like to raise a topic and ask for your advice, guidance.
Today on R-help an issue with a certain package popped up that has been removed
from CRAN, because it failed the checks and/or the dependencies are not any
longer available. The package maintainer has been
On 11-11-25 5:56 AM, Pfaff, Bernhard Dr. wrote:
Dear R-Devel subscriber,
I would like to raise a topic and ask for your advice, guidance.
Today on R-help an issue with a certain package popped up that has been removed
from CRAN, because it failed the checks and/or the dependencies are not any
The ridge() function was put into the survival package as a simple
example of what a user could do with penalized functions. It's not a
"serious" function, and I'd be open to any suggestions for change.
Actually, for any L2 penalty + Cox model one is now better off using
coxme as the maximizatio
On 25.11.2011 11:56, Pfaff, Bernhard Dr. wrote:
Dear R-Devel subscriber,
I would like to raise a topic and ask for your advice, guidance.
Today on R-help an issue with a certain package popped up that has been removed
from CRAN, because it failed the checks and/or the dependencies are not any
On 25/11/2011 9:10 AM, Terry Therneau wrote:
The ridge() function was put into the survival package as a simple
example of what a user could do with penalized functions. It's not a
"serious" function, and I'd be open to any suggestions for change.
Actually, for any L2 penalty + Cox model one is
2011/11/25 Uwe Ligges
> On 25.11.2011 11:56, Pfaff, Bernhard Dr. wrote:
>
>> Dear R-Devel subscriber,
>>
>> I would like to raise a topic and ask for your advice, guidance.
>> Today on R-help an issue with a certain package popped up that has been
>> removed from CRAN, because it failed the check
On 25.11.2011 16:04, Rainer M Krug wrote:
2011/11/25 Uwe Ligges
On 25.11.2011 11:56, Pfaff, Bernhard Dr. wrote:
Dear R-Devel subscriber,
I would like to raise a topic and ask for your advice, guidance.
Today on R-help an issue with a certain package popped up that has been
removed from CRA
On 25.11.2011 11:56, Pfaff, Bernhard Dr. wrote:
> Dear R-Devel subscriber,
>
> I would like to raise a topic and ask for your advice, guidance.
> Today on R-help an issue with a certain package popped up that has been
> removed from CRAN, because it failed the checks and/or the dependencies are
On Fri, 2011-11-25 at 09:50 -0500, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
> I think the general idea in formulas is that it is up to the user to
> define the meaning of functions used in them. Normally the user has
> attached the package that is working on the formula, so the package
> author can provide usefu
On 11/25/2011 9:10 AM, Terry Therneau wrote:
The ridge() function was put into the survival package as a simple
example of what a user could do with penalized functions. It's not a
"serious" function, and I'd be open to any suggestions for change.
Actually, for any L2 penalty + Cox model one is
I agree completely with Uwe on this one. Yet, the idea of Rainer is
useful if you replace "remove the package" by "orphan the package".
Some sort of automated orphanization. The package remains available
that way if I understood it right, and can more easily be adopted by
another developer that fee
On Fri, 2011-11-25 at 10:42 -0500, Michael Friendly wrote:
> Duncan provided one suggestion: make ridge() an S3 generic, and
> rename ridge()
> to ridge.coxph(), but this won't work, since you use ridge() inside
> coxph() and survreg() to add a penalty term in the model formula.
> Another idea m
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 10:37 AM, Terry Therneau wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2011-11-25 at 09:50 -0500, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
>> I think the general idea in formulas is that it is up to the user to
>> define the meaning of functions used in them. Normally the user has
>> attached the package that is worki
On 25/11/2011 10:37 AM, Terry Therneau wrote:
On Fri, 2011-11-25 at 09:50 -0500, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
> I think the general idea in formulas is that it is up to the user to
> define the meaning of functions used in them. Normally the user has
> attached the package that is working on the for
Hi Michael,
I'll look into moving survival to suggests (this weekend, if I have time),
but that doesn't address the more general issue.
Best,
John
> -Original Message-
> From: Michael Friendly [mailto:frien...@yorku.ca]
> Sent: November-25-11 10:43 AM
> To: Terry Therneau
> Cc: r-devel@
I like the idea of making the functions local, and will persue it.
This issue has bothered me for a long time -- I had real misgivings when
I introduced "cluster" to the package, but did not at that time see any
way other than making it global.
I might make this change soon in the ridge functio
On 25/11/2011 12:12 PM, Terry Therneau wrote:
I like the idea of making the functions local, and will persue it.
This issue has bothered me for a long time -- I had real misgivings when
I introduced "cluster" to the package, but did not at that time see any
way other than making it global.
I
Hi,
The "\preformatted" environment in Rd files doesn't seem to escape
long sequences of backslashes properly when converted to pdf (LaTeX)
documentation. I'm running R version 2.14 (from subversion, revision
57751) on Linux (RHEL). Here's an example from the command line:
echo
"\title{test}\n
I've spent the last few hours baffled by a test suite inconsistency.
The exact same library code gives slightly different answers on the home
and work machines - found in my R CMD check run. I've recopied the entire
directory to make sure it's really identical code.
The data set and fit in q
20 matches
Mail list logo
