On 12/09/2012 08:27 PM, John Chambers wrote:
Yes, you are right.
Mixing S3 and S4 methods for a generic is fine, although in subtle cases one is
safer promoting the S3 method to an S4 method, as you did in your example.
Usually, the default method for the S4 generic is the S3 generic. But, in
Hi,
I just figured out that I accidentally posted my message in HTML, so I
am retrying in plain text only. Sorry.
I am currently extending one of our CRAN packages and ran into an
unexpected problem when checking the source package. I got some warnings
in the step "* checking for code/docume
> "PJ" == Paul Johnson
> on Fri, 14 Dec 2012 01:01:19 -0600 writes:
PJ> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 9:01 PM, Yi (Alice) Wang
wrote:
>> I have also encountered a similar problem. My mvabund package runs much
>> faster on linux/OSX than on windows with both R/2.15.1 and R/2.15
On 14.12.2012 07:55, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 3:33 AM, Uwe Ligges
wrote:
Long message, but as far as I can see, this is not about base R but the
contributed package Amelia: Please discuss possible improvements with its
maintainer.
Thanks for answering, but I'm really surp
On 14 December 2012 at 18:07, Uwe Ligges wrote:
| without overhead of packages. The CRAN check times of > 4000 packages
| are typically a good indicator, and they are a bit slower for R-2.15.2
And sadly less so when you force us to turn tests off.
Dirk
--
Dirk Eddelbuettel | e...@debian.org
On 14.12.2012 18:11, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
On 14 December 2012 at 18:07, Uwe Ligges wrote:
| without overhead of packages. The CRAN check times of > 4000 packages
| are typically a good indicator, and they are a bit slower for R-2.15.2
Please do not quote only parts of my sentences, that
On 14.12.2012 04:15, Hin-Tak Leung wrote:
--- On Sun, 9/12/12, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
Do you REALLY think svn would not know about missing
files? There does not
seem to be a limit on the disdain for svn among git users.
Fascinating.
FWIW, as one of the linux kernel maintainers, I don't
On 14 December 2012 at 18:19, Uwe Ligges wrote:
|
|
| On 14.12.2012 18:11, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| >
| > On 14 December 2012 at 18:07, Uwe Ligges wrote:
| > | without overhead of packages. The CRAN check times of > 4000 packages
| > | are typically a good indicator, and they are a bit slower
On 12/14/2012 9:32 AM, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
On 14 December 2012 at 18:19, Uwe Ligges wrote:
|
|
| On 14.12.2012 18:11, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| >
| > On 14 December 2012 at 18:07, Uwe Ligges wrote:
| > | without overhead of packages. The CRAN check times of > 4000 packages
| > | are typical
--- On Fri, 14/12/12, Uwe Ligges wrote:
> On 14.12.2012 04:15, Hin-Tak Leung wrote:
> > --- On Sun, 9/12/12, Dirk Eddelbuettel
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Do you REALLY think svn would not know about
> missing
> >> files? There does not
> >> seem to be a limit on the disdain for svn among git
> user
On Dec 14, 2012, at 1:48 PM, Hin-Tak Leung wrote:
> --- On Fri, 14/12/12, Uwe Ligges wrote:
>
>> On 14.12.2012 04:15, Hin-Tak Leung wrote:
>>> --- On Sun, 9/12/12, Dirk Eddelbuettel
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
Do you REALLY think svn would not know about
>> missing
files? There does not
>>
2 days ago, I posted my long message about the observed slowdown in a
package between R-2.15.0 and R-2.15.2.
Uwe Ligges urged me to make a self-contained R example. That was the
encouragement I needed. I tracked the problem down to a failing use of
a LAPACK routine.
R's LAPACK C interface changed
On 12/14/2012 09:46 AM, Ulrich Bodenhofer wrote:
Hi,
I just figured out that I accidentally posted my message in HTML, so I am
retrying in plain text only. Sorry.
I am currently extending one of our CRAN packages and ran into an unexpected
problem when checking the source package. I got some wa
13 matches
Mail list logo
