Hi,
I have asked this question before, but the solution I ended up with (see
below) creates a note when running R CMD check. So I am trying again...
I am developing a package B that, among other things, also offers some
extra S3-methods for functions in package A if the user has installed A.
On 24/05/2012 10:38, Jon Olav Skoien wrote:
Hi,
I have asked this question before, but the solution I ended up with (see
below) creates a note when running R CMD check. So I am trying again...
I am developing a package B that, among other things, also offers some
extra S3-methods for functions
Hadley Wickham-2 wrote
Curry - function(FUN, ...) {
args - match.call(expand.dots = FALSE)$...
args$... - as.name(...)
env - parent.frame()
if (is.name(FUN)) {
fname - FUN
} else if (is.character(FUN)) {
fname - as.name(FUN)
}
Duncan Murdoch murdoch.duncan at gmail.com writes:
On 12-05-23 4:37 AM, Matthew Dowle wrote:
Hi,
I've read ?is.unsorted and searched. Have found a few items but nothing
close, yet. Is the following expected?
is.unsorted(data.frame(1:2))
[1] FALSE
is.unsorted(data.frame(2:1))
Dear Prof. Ripley,
Thanks a lot for your answers!
See inline comments below.
On 24-May-12 12:01, Prof Brian Ripley wrote:
On 24/05/2012 10:38, Jon Olav Skoien wrote:
I have listed A
under Suggests, and have a .onLoad function in B with
if (require(A)) registerS3methods(newMethodsMatrix,
Duncan Murdoch murdoch.duncan at gmail.com writes:
On 12-05-24 7:39 AM, Matthew Dowle wrote:
Duncan Murdochmurdoch.duncanat gmail.com writes:
On 12-05-23 4:37 AM, Matthew Dowle wrote:
Since it seems to have a bug anyway (and if so, can't be correct in anyone's
use of it), could
On 24/05/2012 9:15 AM, Matthew Dowle wrote:
Duncan Murdochmurdoch.duncanat gmail.com writes:
On 12-05-24 7:39 AM, Matthew Dowle wrote:
Duncan Murdochmurdoch.duncanat gmail.com writes:
On 12-05-23 4:37 AM, Matthew Dowle wrote:
Since it seems to have a bug anyway (and if
On 24/05/2012 9:15 AM, Matthew Dowle wrote:
Duncan Murdochmurdoch.duncanat gmail.com writes:
On 12-05-24 7:39 AM, Matthew Dowle wrote:
Duncan Murdochmurdoch.duncanat gmail.com writes:
On 12-05-23 4:37 AM, Matthew Dowle wrote:
Since it seems to have a bug anyway (and
On 24/05/2012 11:10 AM, Matthew Dowle wrote:
On 24/05/2012 9:15 AM, Matthew Dowle wrote:
Duncan Murdochmurdoch.duncanat gmail.com writes:
On 12-05-24 7:39 AM, Matthew Dowle wrote:
Duncan Murdochmurdoch.duncanatgmail.comwrites:
On 12-05-23 4:37 AM,
Greetings,
I am working on modifying some code from the nlme package. I have had many
discussions on the mixed models mailing list and have been directed to
simply 'hack' the source code to have the degrees of freedom generated by
one function to use in the output of another function that
On May 24, 2012, at 12:25 PM, Charles Determan Jr wrote:
Greetings,
I am working on modifying some code from the nlme package. I have had many
discussions on the mixed models mailing list and have been directed to
simply 'hack' the source code to have the degrees of freedom generated by
Simon,
Thank you for this valuable information. However, you must forgive some
ignorance on my part. If R-registerRoutines defines the native function,
how should I go about fixing this issue? Would I copy the init.c to the
base package (where I have the new function)?
Thanks,
Charles
On
On 24/05/2012 11:10 AM, Matthew Dowle wrote:
On 24/05/2012 9:15 AM, Matthew Dowle wrote:
Duncan Murdochmurdoch.duncanat gmail.com writes:
On 12-05-24 7:39 AM, Matthew Dowle wrote:
Duncan Murdochmurdoch.duncanatgmail.comwrites:
On 12-05-23 4:37
On May 24, 2012, at 1:26 PM, Charles Determan Jr wrote:
Simon,
Thank you for this valuable information. However, you must forgive some
ignorance on my part. If R-registerRoutines defines the native function, how
should I go about fixing this issue? Would I copy the init.c to the base
On 24/05/2012 1:33 PM, Matthew Dowle wrote:
On 24/05/2012 11:10 AM, Matthew Dowle wrote:
On 24/05/2012 9:15 AM, Matthew Dowle wrote:
Duncan Murdochmurdoch.duncanatgmail.comwrites:
On 12-05-24 7:39 AM, Matthew Dowle wrote:
Duncan
Hello. precompiled R-2.15.0, svn58871, macosx 10.7.4.
I have discovered that defining column names of a dataframe can alter the
behaviour of lm():
d - c(4,7,6,4)
x - data.frame(cbind(0:3,5:2))
coef(lm(d~ -1 + (.)^2,data=x))
X1X2 X1:X2
-1.77 0.83 1.25
R
R
OK, so far so good. But
Hi Robin,
Seems like the intended behavior to me. From the docs:
There are two special interpretations of '.' in a formula. The usual
one is in the context of a 'data' argument of model fitting functions
and means 'all columns not otherwise in the formula'
d is in the formula so the only
P.S. It really is sloppy code to mix variables from the global
environment with those inside a data frame. I.e.:
coef(lm(d ~ -1 + (.)^2, data = x))
the only time I think it makes sense to have different objects for the
outcome and predictors are when for speed purposes, you are using a
low level
18 matches
Mail list logo
