> Duncan Murdoch
> on Sat, 1 Nov 2014 13:17:56 -0400 writes:
> On 01/11/2014, 11:33 AM, Peter Simons wrote:
>> Hi Uwe,
>>
>> > Nobody in R core runs NixOS and can reproduce
>> this. This passes on most > other platforms,
>> apparently. If you can point us to a
On 03/11/2014, 4:17 AM, Martin Maechler wrote:
>> Duncan Murdoch
>> on Sat, 1 Nov 2014 13:17:56 -0400 writes:
>
> > On 01/11/2014, 11:33 AM, Peter Simons wrote:
> >> Hi Uwe,
> >>
> >> > Nobody in R core runs NixOS and can reproduce
> >> this. This passes on most >
On Nov 2, 2014, at 10:55 PM, Simon Knapp wrote:
> Thanks Simon and sorry for taking so long to give this a go. I had thought of
> pair lists but got confused about how to protect the top level object only,
> as it seems that appending requires creating a new "top-level object". The
> followin
Dear all,
A colleague of mine reported a problem that I fail to understand
completely. He has a number of .csv files that look all very
straightforward, and they all read in perfectly well using read.csv() on
both his and my computer.
When we try the exact same R version on the university server
R version.
NEWS for 3.1.0:
type.convert() (and hence by default
read.table() returns a character vector or factor when
representing a numeric input as a double would lose accuracy.
Similarly for complex inputs.
NEWS for 3.1.1:
type.convert(), read.table() and simil
...and apparently I have 3.1.1 installed here, instead of 3.1.0 like on the
server. That illustrates very nicely the lack of coffee I experienced on
this monday.
Thank you!
On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 4:41 PM, Simon Urbanek
wrote:
> R version.
>
> NEWS for 3.1.0:
>
> type.convert() (and hence
Hello R-developers!
I am creating a package (using devtools and RStudio) and I would like to split
my vignette into multiple Rnw-files.
As an example I tried the code from:
https://support.rstudio.com/hc/en-us/articles/200486298
(--> Working with multiple Rnw files)
The Rnw-files work fine with
Thanks again Simon. I had realised that R_NilValue didn't need
protection... I just thought it a clean way to make my initial call to
PROTECT_WITH_INDEX (which I can see now was not required since I didn't
need the calls to REPROTECT)... and I had not thought of appending to the
tail.
One final qu
On Nov 3, 2014, at 5:34 PM, Simon Knapp wrote:
> Thanks again Simon. I had realised that R_NilValue didn't need protection...
> I just thought it a clean way to make my initial call to PROTECT_WITH_INDEX
> (which I can see now was not required since I didn't need the calls to
> REPROTECT)...
