Martin, thanks for the good news and sorry for wasting your (and others
time) by not doing my homework and query bugzilla first (lesson learned!
).
I have tested the new implementation from R-devel and observe a semantic
difference when playing with the parameters:
# Test script 1
g <-
> nospam@altfeld-im de
> on Tue, 15 Nov 2016 01:15:46 +0100 writes:
> Martin, thanks for the good news and sorry for wasting your (and others
> time) by not doing my homework and query bugzilla first (lesson learned!
> ).
>
> I have tested the new
Martin, thanks for the good news and sorry for wasting your (and others
time) by not doing my homework and query bugzilla first (lesson learned!
).
I have tested the new implementation from R-devel and observe a semantic
difference when playing with the parameters:
# Test script 1
g <-
> nospam@altfeld-im de
> on Sun, 13 Nov 2016 13:11:38 +0100 writes:
> Dear R friends, to allow post-mortem debugging In my
> Rscript based batch jobs I use
>tryCatch( , error = function(e) {
> dump.frames(to.file = TRUE) })
> to write
Dear R friends,
to allow post-mortem debugging In my Rscript based batch jobs I use
tryCatch( ,
error = function(e)
{
dump.frames(to.file = TRUE)
})
to write the called frames into a dump file.
This is similar to the method recommended in the