I am using RGtk2 for a simple GUI (rattle).
I start rattle from the RGui and I remain able to interact with the
RGui while rattle runs.
Under MS/Windows, when rattle has initiated some other underlying R
command the rattle GUI remains responsive (unlike under GNU/Linux
where it is not responsive
Hi,
here is some discussion/information in the same vein:
(1) R-help thread '[R] The R fork', March 18, 2006:
https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-help/2006-March/101913.html
(2) R-devel thread '[Rd] New simpleExit() condition (Was: Re: Can
example() code stop the example without generating an
On 26/11/2009 12:38 PM, Barry Rowlingson wrote:
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 1:39 PM, Duncan Murdoch murd...@stats.uwo.ca wrote:
This sounds like a good idea, though I would add a package parameter to
the bug.report() function, rather than creating a new function.
I'm sure when I did
Hi,
I'm observing the following warning with R-2.10.0 on a machine I have remote
access to. Like what happened to Roger (
http://www.mail-archive.com/r-devel@r-project.org/msg08669.html ), two extra
instances of X11 are open after dev.off(). Although I'm reporting this on
R-2.10.0, it's
Hello.
In the writing of my OCaml-R binding, I'm sort of confused when it comes
to the use of the PROTECT and UNPROTECT macros.
Basically, I have C stub functions that are in charge of calling R for
everything. Here's a simple example:
CAMLprim value r_findvar (value symbol) {
/* The
I've had success w/ using a reference counting paradigm in which the outside
memory manager calls UNPROTECT_PTR(R_object_); in its destructor.
So, in my case (using c++ ) if objects are allocated on the heap, which
allocate R objects as their backend storage, I don't have to worry about out
of
Whit Armstrong a écrit :
I've had success w/ using a reference counting paradigm in which the outside
memory manager calls UNPROTECT_PTR(R_object_); in its destructor.
So, in my case (using c++ ) if objects are allocated on the heap, which
allocate R objects as their backend storage, I don't
