On 20 Nov 2003, Peter Dalgaard wrote:
Patrick Connolly [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 19-Nov-2003 at 05:03PM +, Prof Brian Ripley wrote:
| For the record, ISOdate *is* giving the right answer, a POSIXct object.
|
| The problem is in printing, where there was a simple coding
I've been using the following little `helper` function:
tea - function() {
shell(C:\\program files\\kettle\\tea.exe /2sugars, wait=FALSE)
}
I was thinking of submitting it to CRAN until I discovered that
when I ran it on my laptop on holiday in Italy, it made coffee!
I reluctantly decided not
Dear all,
I have found the following (for me) incomprehensible behaviour of
ISOdate (POSIXct):
ISOdate(1900,6,16)
[1] 1900-06-15 14:00:00 Westeuropäische Sommerzeit
ISOdate(1950,6,16)
[1] 1950-06-16 14:00:00 Westeuropäische Sommerzeit
Note that in the first case I get the 15th of June back,
Schaefer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [R] ISOdate returns incorrect date?
Dear all,
I have found the following (for me) incomprehensible behaviour of
ISOdate (POSIXct):
ISOdate(1900,6,16)
[1] 1900-06-15 14:00:00 Westeuropäische Sommerzeit
ISOdate(1950,6,16)
[1] 1950-06-16 14
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [R] ISOdate returns incorrect date?
Security Warning:
If you are not sure an attachment is safe to open please contact
Andy on x234. There are 0 attachments with this message
day?!
Still puzzled...
Heiko
-Original Message-
From: Gabor Grothendieck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Mittwoch, 19. November 2003 17:06
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [R] ISOdate returns incorrect date?
ISOdate works, by default, in the GMT timezone. Try
: RE: [R] ISOdate returns incorrect date?
Well, I live only a few seconds away from GMT and I also get
ISOdate(1900,6,16,tz=)
[1] 1900-06-15 12:00:00 GMT Daylight Time
15th, not 16th.
Was 1900 a strange leap year? I certainly haven't tested thoroughly but
note this:
ISOdate(1900,2,16,tz=)
[1
Well, one clue is that date is before the modern era, and most OSes only
go back to 1902. Some only go back to 1970! I suspect the OS does not
know that 1900 was not a leap year.
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Heiko Schaefer wrote:
Does this really work for you? I still get:
ISOdate(1900,6,16)
[1]
Heiko Schaefer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Does this really work for you? I still get:
ISOdate(1900,6,16)
[1] 1900-06-15 14:00:00 Westeuropäische Sommerzeit
ISOdate(1900,6,16,tz=)
[1] 1900-06-15 12:00:00 Westeuropäische Sommerzeit
Obviously the time son influences the time, but it can
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [R] ISOdate returns incorrect date?
Heiko Schaefer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Does this really work for you? I still get:
ISOdate(1900,6,16)
[1] 1900-06-15 14:00:00 Westeuropäische Sommerzeit
ISOdate(1900,6,16,tz=)
[1] 1900-06-15 12
For the record, ISOdate *is* giving the right answer, a POSIXct object.
The problem is in printing, where there was a simple coding bug: is_year
was applied to the POSIX `year' which is year-1900.
It's always worth distinguishing between the actual value and its printed
representation.
On
PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [R] ISOdate returns incorrect date?
Well, one clue is that date is before the modern era, and most OSes only
go back to 1902. Some only go back to 1970! I suspect the OS does not
know that 1900 was not a leap year.
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Heiko Schaefer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [R] ISOdate returns incorrect date?
It starts on the 1st of March 1900 to go wrong I feel better now
that somebody
Else these the same effect ;-)
-Original Message-
From: Simon Fear [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Mittwoch
On Wed, 19-Nov-2003 at 05:45PM +0100, Peter Dalgaard wrote:
| Yes, something is strange for me too (RedHat 8):
|
| ISOdate(1900,3,1)
| [1] 1900-03-01 13:00:00 CET
| ISOdate(1900,3,2)
| [1] 1900-03-01 13:00:00 CET
|
| Apparently, the one-day shift affects all dates after March 2, 1900,
| and
On Wed, 19-Nov-2003 at 05:03PM +, Prof Brian Ripley wrote:
| For the record, ISOdate *is* giving the right answer, a POSIXct object.
|
| The problem is in printing, where there was a simple coding bug: is_year
| was applied to the POSIX `year' which is year-1900.
I can't see why it doesn't
Patrick Connolly [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 19-Nov-2003 at 05:03PM +, Prof Brian Ripley wrote:
| For the record, ISOdate *is* giving the right answer, a POSIXct object.
|
| The problem is in printing, where there was a simple coding bug: is_year
| was applied to the POSIX
16 matches
Mail list logo
