> Gabriel Becker
> on Tue, 24 May 2016 10:30:48 -0700 writes:
> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 9:30 AM, Jeroen Ooms
> wrote:
>> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 5:59 PM, Gabriel Becker
>> wrote:
>> > Shouldn't Rf_mkString(NULL) return (the c-level equivalent of)
>> characte
>
> on Tue, 24 May 2016 15:15:17 -0700 writes:
> Thank you, Martin. I linked to your message in a comment here so maybe
> other people will know about that useful technique:
> http://singmann.org/installing-r-devel-on-linux/#comment-161
> However, when I try it, I
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 12:31 PM, Martin Maechler
wrote:
> Better than segfaulting, yes, but really agree with Bill (and
> Gabe), also for Rf_mkChar(NULL):
> I think both functions should give an error in such a case
> rather than returning NA_character_
>
> It is an accident of some kind if they
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 4:23 AM, Jeroen Ooms
wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 12:31 PM, Martin Maechler
> wrote:
> > Better than segfaulting, yes, but really agree with Bill (and
> > Gabe), also for Rf_mkChar(NULL):
> > I think both functions should give an error in such a case
> > rather than r
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 7:22 AM, Michael Lawrence wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 4:23 AM, Jeroen Ooms
> wrote:
>
I'm not disagreeing with what's been said in this thread, but I can't help
but recall that I brought up this exact issue probably 15 years ago and was
told (by Brian, I believe) "d
On Wed, 25 May 2016, Tim Keitt wrote:
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 7:22 AM, Michael Lawrence
wrote:
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 4:23 AM, Jeroen Ooms
wrote:
I'm not disagreeing with what's been said in this thread, but I can't help
but recall that I brought up this exact issue probably 15 years ag
While constructing some tests of symbolic link code in R, I got
an odd warning when trying the remove a symbolic link:
file.create(tfile <- tempfile())
#[1] TRUE
file.symlink(tfile, tlink <- tempfile())
#[1] TRUE
unlink(tlink)
#Warning message:
#In unlink(tlink) :
# cannot delete reparse point
'C
http://www.keittlab.org/
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 10:43 AM, wrote:
> On Wed, 25 May 2016, Tim Keitt wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 7:22 AM, Michael Lawrence <
>> lawrence.mich...@gene.com
>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 4:23 AM, Jeroen Ooms
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>> I'm not disag
Hi Martin,
Thanks for the Makefile clue. The file 'non-tarball' was present in
the source directory, but not in the build directory (should the
Makefile be checking for 'non-tarball' in the source directory
instead?). However, 'doc/FAQ' was present in the source directory, so
the first clause of '
Hi,
I tend to agree with the objections expressed earlier. I would only
add that making the NULL pointer semantically equivalent to NA would
introduce a precedent that could lead to some confusion. For example
it would set the expectation that CHAR(Rf_mkChar(NULL)) is NULL,
which is not the case
10 matches
Mail list logo