I was hoping for a 'yes', 'no', 'maybe' or 'bad idea because ...'. No
response resulted in a retry() after a Sys.sleep(10 days).
If its a yes or maybe then I could proceed to try it, test it, and
present the test results and timings to you along with the patch. It would
be on 32bit Ubuntu
Matthew Dowle wrote:
I was hoping for a 'yes', 'no', 'maybe' or 'bad idea because ...'. No
response resulted in a retry() after a Sys.sleep(10 days).
If its a yes or maybe then I could proceed to try it, test it, and
present the test results and timings to you along with the patch. It would
Thanks a lot. Quick and brief responses below...
Duncan Murdoch murd...@stats.uwo.ca wrote in message
news:4b90f134.6070...@stats.uwo.ca...
Matthew Dowle wrote:
I was hoping for a 'yes', 'no', 'maybe' or 'bad idea because ...'. No
response resulted in a retry() after a Sys.sleep(10 days).
On 3/5/10 4:40 AM, Matthew Dowle wrote:
Thanks a lot. Quick and brief responses below...
Duncan Murdochmurd...@stats.uwo.ca wrote in message
news:4b90f134.6070...@stats.uwo.ca...
Matthew Dowle wrote:
I was hoping for a 'yes', 'no', 'maybe' or 'bad idea because ...'. No
response resulted in
Looking at shash in unique.c, from R-2.10.1 I'm wondering if it makes sense
to hash the pointer itself rather than the string it points to?
In other words could the SEXP pointer be cast to unsigned int and the usual
scatter be called on that as if it were integer?
shash would look like a
