Jeffrey J. Hallman wrote:
> Duncan Murdoch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>> One reason I don't want to work on this is because the appropriate
>> action depends on what "length(x)" is intended to mean. Currently for
>> POSIXlt objects, it gives the physical length of the underlying basic
>
Duncan Murdoch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> One reason I don't want to work on this is because the appropriate
> action depends on what "length(x)" is intended to mean. Currently for
> POSIXlt objects, it gives the physical length of the underlying basic
> type (the list). This is the same b
Duncan Murdoch wrote:
> On 15/12/2007 5:17 PM, Martin Maechler wrote:
>>> "TP" == Tony Plate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> on Fri, 14 Dec 2007 13:58:30 -0700 writes:
>> TP> Duncan Murdoch wrote:
>> >> On 12/13/2007 1:59 PM, Tony Plate wrote:
>> >>> Duncan Murdoch wrote:
>> >>>
On 15/12/2007 5:17 PM, Martin Maechler wrote:
>> "TP" == Tony Plate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> on Fri, 14 Dec 2007 13:58:30 -0700 writes:
>
> TP> Duncan Murdoch wrote:
> >> On 12/13/2007 1:59 PM, Tony Plate wrote:
> >>> Duncan Murdoch wrote:
> On 12/11/2007 6:20 AM, [E
If it were simply deprecated and then changed then
everyone using it would get a warning during the period
of deprecation so it would
not be so bad. Given that its current behavior is
not very useful I suspect its not widely used anyways.
| haven't followed the whole discussion so sorry if these
p
> "TP" == Tony Plate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> on Fri, 14 Dec 2007 13:58:30 -0700 writes:
TP> Duncan Murdoch wrote:
>> On 12/13/2007 1:59 PM, Tony Plate wrote:
>>> Duncan Murdoch wrote:
On 12/11/2007 6:20 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Full_Name: Petr Simecek
Duncan Murdoch wrote:
> On 12/13/2007 1:59 PM, Tony Plate wrote:
>> Duncan Murdoch wrote:
>>> On 12/11/2007 6:20 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Full_Name: Petr Simecek
Version: 2.5.1, 2.6.1
OS: Windows XP
Submission from: (NULL) (195.113.231.2)
Several times I have
On 12/13/2007 1:59 PM, Tony Plate wrote:
> Duncan Murdoch wrote:
>> On 12/11/2007 6:20 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> Full_Name: Petr Simecek
>>> Version: 2.5.1, 2.6.1
>>> OS: Windows XP
>>> Submission from: (NULL) (195.113.231.2)
>>>
>>>
>>> Several times I have experienced that a length of a PO
Duncan Murdoch wrote:
> On 12/11/2007 6:20 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Full_Name: Petr Simecek
>> Version: 2.5.1, 2.6.1
>> OS: Windows XP
>> Submission from: (NULL) (195.113.231.2)
>>
>>
>> Several times I have experienced that a length of a POSIXt vector has not
>> been
>> computed right.
>>
It is right: it is a list of length 9. You even constructed it as such a
list!
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Full_Name: Petr Simecek
> Version: 2.5.1, 2.6.1
> OS: Windows XP
> Submission from: (NULL) (195.113.231.2)
>
>
> Several times I have experienced that a length of a POS
On 12/11/2007 6:20 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Full_Name: Petr Simecek
> Version: 2.5.1, 2.6.1
> OS: Windows XP
> Submission from: (NULL) (195.113.231.2)
>
>
> Several times I have experienced that a length of a POSIXt vector has not been
> computed right.
>
> Example:
>
> tv<-structure(list
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Full_Name: Petr Simecek
> Version: 2.5.1, 2.6.1
> OS: Windows XP
> Submission from: (NULL) (195.113.231.2)
>
>
> Several times I have experienced that a length of a POSIXt vector has not been
> computed right.
>
> Example:
>
> tv<-structure(list(sec = c(50, 0, 55, 12, 2,
Full_Name: Petr Simecek
Version: 2.5.1, 2.6.1
OS: Windows XP
Submission from: (NULL) (195.113.231.2)
Several times I have experienced that a length of a POSIXt vector has not been
computed right.
Example:
tv<-structure(list(sec = c(50, 0, 55, 12, 2, 0, 37, NA, 17, 3, 31
), min = c(1L, 10L, 11L,
13 matches
Mail list logo
