Hello,
I have sent a mail but I got no answer.
Can you create a bugzilla account for me.
Thanks,
Jean-Sébastien Bevilacqua
2017-03-20 10:24 GMT+01:00 realitix :
> Hello,
> Here a small improvement for R.
>
> When you use the function write.table, if the disk is full for example,
> the function
> realitix
> on Wed, 22 Mar 2017 10:17:54 +0100 writes:
> Hello,
> I have sent a mail but I got no answer.
All work here happens on a volunteer basis... and it seems
everybody was busy or not interested.
> Can you create a bugzilla account for me.
I've done that now.
This looks like a bug in mingw-w64 CRT. The problem can be produced
with C++ without R:
#include
#include
#include
int main(){
std::cout << std::fixed;
std::complex z(356, 0);
std::cout << "tanh" << z << " = " << std::tanh(z)
<< " (tanh(356) = " << std::tanh(356) <
On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 8:00 AM, Hadley Wickham wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 7:36 AM, Radford Neal wrote:
>> Michael Lawrence (as last in long series of posters)...
>>
>>> Yes, it would bind the language object to the environment, like an
>>> R-level promise (but "promise" of course refers sp
On Mon, 2017-03-20 at 16:38 +0100, Jeroen Ooms wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 9:09 PM, Martyn Plummer
> wrote:
> > I have just added some code to ensure that the compilation fails
> > with an informative error message if a specific C++ standard is
> > requested but the corresponding compiler has
RN> There is an opportunity cost to grabbing the presently-unused unary @
RN> operator for this
I don't think this is the case because the parser has to interpret `@`
in formal argument lists in a different way than in function calls.
Besides, it'd make sense to set up these annotations with a b
ML> For the uqs() thing, expanding calls like that is somewhat orthogonal
ML> to NSE. It would be nice in general to be able to write something like
ML> mean(x, extra_args...) without resorting to do.call(mean, c(list(x),
ML> extra_args)).
This is not completely true because splicing is necessari
