Hi,
Since the attached file didn't make it all the way through to the
mailing list, you can find it at
http://www.ebi.ac.uk/~jgehring/share/shortRead-pkg/0001-Example-patch-for-naming-samples-in-BAMQA.patch.
Best wishes
Julian
On 02/12/2013 03:23 PM, Julian Gehring wrote:
Hi,
In the QA
On 02/12/2013 06:29 AM, Julian Gehring wrote:
Hi,
Since the attached file didn't make it all the way through to the mailing list,
you can find it at
http://www.ebi.ac.uk/~jgehring/share/shortRead-pkg/0001-Example-patch-for-naming-samples-in-BAMQA.patch.
Thanks Julian the request seems
Hi Dan,
I actually just installed the latest version of R-Devel (r61902) and
used biocLite(plgem) to download and install the latest version of
my package from the server. Although there are no errors or warnings
on the Bioc build/check report, my package still lacks the PDF version
of the
FWIW my view is that for data cleaning and organizing factors just get
it the way. For modeling I like them because they make it easier to
understand what is happening. For example I can look at the levels()
to see what the reference group will be. With characters one has to
know a) that levels
Dear DevelopeRs,
I've been struggling with the new regulations regarding modifications to
the search path, regarding my Rcmdr plugin package RcmdrPlugin.DoE. John
Fox made Rcmdr comply with the new policy by removing the environment
RcmdrEnv from the search path. For the time being, he
Duncan Murdoch murdoch.duncan at gmail.com writes:
[snip]
Regarding stringsAsFactors: I'm not going to defend keeping it as is,
I'll let the people who like it defend it.
Would someone (anyone) like to come forward and give us a defense
of stringsAsFactors=TRUE -- even someone who
Here my question: Would it be an option to place the widgets in a private
environment of my plugin package (then I would have to learn how to create
one and work with it), or won't they be found that way?
It sounds like you want to maintain state across function calls within
your package, and
On 12.02.2013 14:54, Ben Bolker wrote:
Duncan Murdoch murdoch.duncan at gmail.com writes:
[snip]
Regarding stringsAsFactors: I'm not going to defend keeping it as is,
I'll let the people who like it defend it.
Would someone (anyone) like to come forward and give us a defense
of
Uwe I've been consulting for decades and have never once been asked for such
stars. And when a clinical researcher puts a sentence in a study protocol
that P0.05 will be considered significant I get them to take it out.
Frank
Uwe Ligges-3 wrote
On 12.02.2013 14:54, Ben Bolker wrote:
Duncan
On 12/02/2013 9:20 AM, Uwe Ligges wrote:
On 12.02.2013 14:54, Ben Bolker wrote:
Duncan Murdoch murdoch.duncan at gmail.com writes:
[snip]
Regarding stringsAsFactors: I'm not going to defend keeping it as is,
I'll let the people who like it defend it.
Would someone (anyone) like
Hi,
I am Parthasarathy G , from IIT Maras ( India ). I am currently in third
year of the undergraduate course.
I would like to contribute to the R project. Can anyone guide me regarding
this?
Thanking you,
Parthasarathy
[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
I think that we should use P .03 (which approximates the probability of 5
consecutive heads) for assigning significance!
Ravi
-Original Message-
From: r-devel-boun...@r-project.org [mailto:r-devel-boun...@r-project.org] On
Behalf Of Frank Harrell
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 9:43
On 12.02.2013 15:42, Frank Harrell wrote:
Uwe I've been consulting for decades and have never once been asked for such
stars.
Honestly: last time I have been asked last week.
And when I answered (in another case few months ago) OK, I can add you
another 5 stars for p values smaller than
On 13-02-12 09:20 AM, Uwe Ligges wrote:
On 12.02.2013 14:54, Ben Bolker wrote:
Duncan Murdoch murdoch.duncan at gmail.com writes:
[snip]
Regarding stringsAsFactors: I'm not going to defend keeping it as is,
I'll let the people who like it defend it.
Would someone (anyone) like
On 12.02.2013 16:40, Ben Bolker wrote:
On 13-02-12 09:20 AM, Uwe Ligges wrote:
On 12.02.2013 14:54, Ben Bolker wrote:
Duncan Murdoch murdoch.duncan at gmail.com writes:
[snip]
Regarding stringsAsFactors: I'm not going to defend keeping it as is,
I'll let the people who like it
On 12/02/2013 10:40 AM, Ben Bolker wrote:
On 13-02-12 09:20 AM, Uwe Ligges wrote:
On 12.02.2013 14:54, Ben Bolker wrote:
Duncan Murdoch murdoch.duncan at gmail.com writes:
[snip]
Regarding stringsAsFactors: I'm not going to defend keeping it as is,
I'll let the people who like it
I thought that the default was the way it was for performance reasons. For
large data.frames or repeated applications, using factors should be faster for
non-trivial strings.
fs - c('apple','peach','watermelon','spinach','persimmon','potato','kale')
n - 100
a1 -
On Feb 12, 2013, at 17:05 , Brian Lee Yung Rowe wrote:
I thought that the default was the way it was for performance reasons. For
large data.frames or repeated applications, using factors should be faster
for non-trivial strings.
I think not. Historically, it's more like In statistics we
Here is the current behavior (in 2.15.2 and 3.0.0):
exists(c('notLikely', 'exists'))
[1] FALSE
exists(c('exists', 'notLikely'))
[1] TRUE
get(c('notLikely', 'exists'))
Error in get(c(notLikely, exists)) : object 'notLikely' not found
get(c('exists', 'notLikely'))
function (x, where = -1,
They are reaching for the stars. Pardon my jest, but I couldn't resist.
Ravi
-Original Message-
From: r-devel-boun...@r-project.org [mailto:r-devel-boun...@r-project.org] On
Behalf Of Uwe Ligges
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 10:01 AM
To: Frank Harrell
Cc: r-devel@r-project.org
I think it may have been John D. Cook who first observed that p-values are
linearly correlated with the amount of time remaining on a grant.
Perhaps a suitable transform would reveal an ordinal relationship with
stars.
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 7:03 AM, Ravi Varadhan ravi.varad...@jhu.eduwrote:
On Feb 12, 2013, at 11:05 AM, Brian Lee Yung Rowe wrote:
I thought that the default was the way it was for performance reasons. For
large data.frames or repeated applications, using factors should be faster
for non-trivial strings.
fs -
Hi Parthasarathy,
IMHO the easiest way to contribute to R is contributing to an R
package. And one way to do that is to apply for a Google Summer of Code
project. I guess activities about that will start soon, as the program
was just announced, and they will take place at a separate email list:
On 02/12/2013 08:20 AM, peter dalgaard wrote:
On Feb 12, 2013, at 17:05 , Brian Lee Yung Rowe wrote:
I thought that the default was the way it was for performance reasons. For
large data.frames or repeated applications, using factors should be faster for
non-trivial strings.
I think not.
On 12/02/2013 1:47 PM, Hervé Pagès wrote:
On 02/12/2013 08:20 AM, peter dalgaard wrote:
On Feb 12, 2013, at 17:05 , Brian Lee Yung Rowe wrote:
I thought that the default was the way it was for performance reasons. For
large data.frames or repeated applications, using factors should be
Hi Duncan,
On 02/12/2013 11:19 AM, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
On 12/02/2013 1:47 PM, Hervé Pagès wrote:
On 02/12/2013 08:20 AM, peter dalgaard wrote:
On Feb 12, 2013, at 17:05 , Brian Lee Yung Rowe wrote:
I thought that the default was the way it was for performance
reasons. For large
Is there some way to prevent finalizers running during a section of code?
I have a package that includes R objects linked to database tables. To
maintain the call-by-value semantics, tables are copied rather than
modified, and the extra tables are removed by finalizers during garbage
collection.
27 matches
Mail list logo
