Dear R-core team,
I think I found a small inconsistency in the boxplot function. I don't want
to post it as a bug since I'm not sure this might be considered as one
according to the FAQ --- and this is not a major problem. Don't hesitate to
tell me if I'm wrong.
If you try to do a
Someone ambitious could find problems like
this using random input testing like I talked
about at useR last summer.
http://www.burns-stat.com/pages/Present/random_input_test_annotated.pdf
Testing graphics would be more labor intensive
than the testing I do, but you could think of it
as a video
Hi all,
in a package, I register two S3 classes (namely ff_vector and ffdf) by
calling setOldClass() in order to use them as slots in S4 classes. Now,
R CMD check gives me the warning:
Undocumented S4 classes:
'ff_vector' 'ffdf'
Is there a way to avoid having to document classes I did not
Hi,
A probably very naive remark, but I believe that the probability of sum(
runif(1) ) = 5 is exactly 0.5. So why not just test that, and
generate the uniform values only if needed ?
Karl Forner
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 6:09 PM, Raymond gw...@mail.missouri.edu wrote:
Hi R developers,
On 11/18/2011 07:08 AM, Karl Forner wrote:
Hi,
A probably very naive remark, but I believe that the probability of sum(
runif(1) )= 5 is exactly 0.5. So why not just test that, and
generate the uniform values only if needed ?
My thought as well, but actually the deviates need to have
I have stumbled across some behaviour in R that I really can't place,
and that makes coding a bit tricky. I know that I can work around it
when explicitly checking for missing arguments, but still...
I have two functions. I have a first function based on paste
fun1 - function(x,y){
Because if you calculate the probability and then make uniform values,
nothing guarantees that the sum of those uniform values actually is
larger than 50,000. You only have 50% chance it is, in fact...
Cheers
Joris
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 4:08 PM, Karl Forner karl.for...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
A
On Nov 18, 2011, at 10:43 AM, Joris Meys wrote:
I have stumbled across some behaviour in R that I really can't place,
and that makes coding a bit tricky. I know that I can work around it
when explicitly checking for missing arguments, but still...
I have two functions. I have a first
On Fri, 2011-11-18 at 16:43 +0100, Joris Meys wrote:
I have stumbled across some behaviour in R that I really can't place,
and that makes coding a bit tricky. I know that I can work around it
when explicitly checking for missing arguments, but still...
I have two functions. I have a first
Jordi,
I think you are misunderstanding a few things here. First, R doesn't endorse
anything - it is a program, it does what you tell it to do. Second, whoever
runs R-forge doesn't endorse the packages hosted on it, either. It's just an
infrastructure, with no claim about endorsement of the
You can also see the odd behavior without wrapping round in another
function:
round(100.1, digits=)
[1] 100
On 11/18/2011 10:19 AM, Joris Meys wrote:
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 5:10 PM, Gavin Simpsongavin.simp...@ucl.ac.uk wrote:
round is indicated to not evaluate its arguments. I don't
2011/11/18 Simon Urbanek simon.urba...@r-project.org:
I think you are misunderstanding a few things here. First, R
doesn't endorse anything - it is a program,
It is also an organisation and that organisation has a website.
Someone is responsible for the contents of that website and the views
I'm sorry about the tone of my previous email. Let me try again in a
cleaner way.
The problem is: R or the organisation behind R via its infrastructure
seems to be endorsing R-Forge, and R-Forge is hosting at least one
project whose sole purpose is to link R with non-free software. This
looks
On Nov 18, 2011, at 1:00 PM, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
I'm sorry about the tone of my previous email. Let me try again in a
cleaner way.
The problem is: R or the organisation behind R via its infrastructure
seems to be endorsing R-Forge, and R-Forge is hosting at least one
project whose
You are, of course, missing the obvious solution, which is to do nothing.
The endorsement of a non-free project seems to me to reside only in
your imagination. The primary product produced by The R Project for
Statistical Computing is the statistical software environment R, which
is released
Could whoever is in charge of the next DSC contact me? We might be
able to co-host it with interface in Houston, May 16-18 2012.
Hadley
--
Assistant Professor / Dobelman Family Junior Chair
Department of Statistics / Rice University
http://had.co.nz/
FYI,
for the last few revision the version string for both R v2.14.0
patched and R devel are not correct for the Windows binaries. This is
what R --version and sessionInfo() report since a couple of days:
R version 2.14.0 Patched (2006-00-00 r0)
R Under development (unstable) (2006-00-00
2011/11/18 Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso jord...@octave.org:
I don't see how MOSEK is making free software stronger. It's not
encouraging the usage of more free software. It's encouraging the use
of MOSEK. MOSEK should not be endorsed by an organisation that is
supposed to promote free software.
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 9:34 AM, Kevin R. Coombes
kevin.r.coom...@gmail.com wrote:
You can also see the odd behavior without wrapping round in another
function:
round(100.1, digits=)
[1] 100
Hmm... is there a reason for why the parser accepts that construct?
Some example:
parse(text=f(a=))
Which 'Windows binaries'?
Mine are correct, so you need to take this up with the builder (named
on CRAN). No one else on R-devel can do anything about this.
On Fri, 18 Nov 2011, Henrik Bengtsson wrote:
FYI,
for the last few revision the version string for both R v2.14.0
patched and R
20 matches
Mail list logo
