TL == Thomas Lumley tlum...@u.washington.edu
on Sat, 25 Apr 2009 19:00:14 +0200 (CEST) writes:
m-matrix(c(0,1),ncol=2)
printCoefmat(m)
TL [,1] [,2]
TL [1,] NaN1
TL Warning messages:
TL 1: In min(x) : no non-missing arguments to min; returning Inf
TL 2: In
(This is really in response to Peter Dalgaard, not to myself)
This seems to come from constructions of the form
for i in $FOO : do ; done
If $FOO is empty, then the resulting for i in ; is a syntax error
with some versions of bash and sh.
Given that one should generally be writing
In released 2.9.0, we have been seeing warnings when installing sp, for
example:
Warning in .checkS3forClass(class...@classname, where, names(exts)) :
Some of the superclasses in the definition of class SpatialPoints have
apparent S3 methods.
DANGER: the new class will not inherit these
On Apr 29, 2009, at 5:55 , Atro Tossavainen wrote:
(This is really in response to Peter Dalgaard, not to myself)
This seems to come from constructions of the form
for i in $FOO : do ; done
If $FOO is empty, then the resulting for i in ; is a syntax error
with some versions of bash and
I wasn't sure where to send this...
On the What's New section of the homepage, the Latest package link
points towards
https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-packages/2008/date.html#end
It should probably point towards 2009.
Thanks,
Max
__
These look like important improvements. As a relative newcomer to the R
community, I'm not sure I understand what the procedures are for such
changes.
In particular, does the fact that the changes were committed to R-devel mean
that the changes have already been reviewed and approved by R Core?
On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 10:24:53 -0400,
Max Kuhn (MK) wrote:
I wasn't sure where to send this...
On the What's New section of the homepage, the Latest package link
points towards
https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-packages/2008/date.html#end
It should probably point towards 2009.
Right, these warnings correctly go away with the changes currently in
r-devel.
As I said in my mail, I do want to port them to 2.9.1 and was waiting
for a little more testing.
(Also, I'm about to move back to the East Coast for the summer, and will
be out of touch for a few days next week.
Stavros Macrakis wrote:
These look like important improvements. As a relative newcomer to the R
community, I'm not sure I understand what the procedures are for such
changes.
In particular, does the fact that the changes were committed to R-devel mean
that the changes have already been
