> Ben Bolker
> on Mon, 27 Dec 2021 09:43:42 -0500 writes:
>I agree that it seems non-intuitive (I can't think of a
> design reason for it to look this way), but I'd like to
> stress that it's *not* an information leak; the
> predictions of the model are independent
Index: doc/NEWS.Rd
===
--- doc/NEWS.Rd (revision 81435)
+++ doc/NEWS.Rd (working copy)
@@ -425,7 +425,7 @@
data frames with default row names (Thanks to Charlie Gao's
\PR{18179}).
- \item \code{txtProgresBar()}
> Ben Bolker
> on Mon, 3 Jan 2022 11:04:48 -0500 writes:
> Index: doc/NEWS.Rd
> ===
> --- doc/NEWS.Rd (revision 81435)
> +++ doc/NEWS.Rd (working copy)
> @@ -425,7 +425,7 @@
> data frames with
> Hugh Parsonage
> on Wed, 29 Dec 2021 00:36:51 +1100 writes:
> In src/main/printvector.c in the definition of printVector and
> printNamedVector (and elsewhere):
> Rprintf(" [ reached getOption(\"max.print\") -- omitted %d entries ]\n",
> n - n_pr);
> T
On 1/3/22 6:15 PM, Martin Maechler wrote:
Hugh Parsonage
on Wed, 29 Dec 2021 00:36:51 +1100 writes:
> In src/main/printvector.c in the definition of printVector and
> printNamedVector (and elsewhere):
> Rprintf(" [ reached getOption(\"max.print\") -- omitted %d entries ]\
Let me be clear up front that I do not want to start any major discussions,
merely to share some observations.
We discussed at length what it would mean if R was extended to allow a plus
sign to concatenate text when the operands were both of the right types that
made sense for the purpose so t
