On Fri, 7 Dec 2007, Ben Bolker wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Luke Tierney wrote:
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
For working at the general likelihood I think is is better to
encourage the approach of definign likelihood constructor functions.
The
On Sat, 8 Dec 2007, Peter Dalgaard wrote:
Luke Tierney wrote:
[misc snippage]
But I'd prefer to avoid the necessity for users to manipulate the
environment of a function. I think the pattern
model( f, data=d )
For working at the general likelihood I think is is better to
encourage
On 12/7/2007 8:10 AM, Peter Dalgaard wrote:
Ben Bolker wrote:
At this point I'd just like to advertise the bbmle package
(on CRAN) for those who respectfully disagree, as I do, with Peter over
this issue. I have added a data= argument to my version
of the function that allows other
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
On Dec 7, 2007 8:43 AM, Duncan Murdoch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/7/2007 8:10 AM, Peter Dalgaard wrote:
This is at least cleaner than abusing the fixed argument.
Agreed.
As you know,
I have reservations, one
Ben Bolker wrote:
At this point I'd just like to advertise the bbmle package
(on CRAN) for those who respectfully disagree, as I do, with Peter over
this issue. I have added a data= argument to my version
of the function that allows other variables to be passed
to the objective function.
On Dec 7, 2007 8:43 AM, Duncan Murdoch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/7/2007 8:10 AM, Peter Dalgaard wrote:
Ben Bolker wrote:
At this point I'd just like to advertise the bbmle package
(on CRAN) for those who respectfully disagree, as I do, with Peter over
this issue. I have added a
On Dec 7, 2007 8:10 AM, Peter Dalgaard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ben Bolker wrote:
At this point I'd just like to advertise the bbmle package
(on CRAN) for those who respectfully disagree, as I do, with Peter over
this issue. I have added a data= argument to my version
of the function
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Luke Tierney wrote:
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
For working at the general likelihood I think is is better to
encourage the approach of definign likelihood constructor functions.
The problem with using f, data is that you need
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
On 12/7/2007 8:10 AM, Peter Dalgaard wrote:
Ben Bolker wrote:
At this point I'd just like to advertise the bbmle package
(on CRAN) for those who respectfully disagree, as I do, with Peter over
this issue. I have added a data= argument to my
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
On 12/7/2007 8:10 AM, Peter Dalgaard wrote:
Ben Bolker wrote:
At this point I'd just like to advertise the bbmle package
(on CRAN) for those who respectfully disagree, as I do, with Peter over
this issue. I have added a data= argument to my
Luke Tierney wrote:
[misc snippage]
But I'd prefer to avoid the necessity for users to manipulate the
environment of a function. I think the pattern
model( f, data=d )
For working at the general likelihood I think is is better to
encourage the approach of definign likelihood constructor
2007/12/7, Ben Bolker [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Luke Tierney wrote:
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
For working at the general likelihood I think is is better to
encourage the approach of definign likelihood constructor functions.
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
On Dec 7, 2007 8:10 AM, Peter Dalgaard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ben Bolker wrote:
At this point I'd just like to advertise the bbmle package
(on CRAN) for those who respectfully disagree, as I do, with Peter over
this issue. I have added a
Hello:
I wish to again express my appreciation to all who have
contributed to making R what it is today.
At this moment, I'm particularly grateful for whoever modified the
'mle' code so data no longer need be passed via global variables. I
remember struggling with this a couple
Spencer Graves wrote:
Hello:
I wish to again express my appreciation to all who have
contributed to making R what it is today.
At this moment, I'm particularly grateful for whoever modified the
'mle' code so data no longer need be passed via global variables. I
remember
The closure only works if you are defining the inner function yourself.
If you are not then its yet more work to redefine the environment of
the inner function or other workaround.
On Dec 6, 2007 6:01 PM, Peter Dalgaard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Spencer Graves wrote:
Hello:
I wish to
Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
The closure only works if you are defining the inner function yourself.
If you are not then its yet more work to redefine the environment of
the inner function or other workaround.
On Dec 6, 2007 6:01 PM, Peter Dalgaard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Spencer Graves
17 matches
Mail list logo
