sapply() stems from S / S+ times and hence has a long tradition.
In spite of that I think that it should be enhanced...
As the subject mentions, sapply() produces a matrix in cases
where the list components of the lapply(.) results are of the
same length (and ...).
However, it unfortunately stops
Hello,
I have created my own R package and written the documentation in Rd
format for each of the functions plus the package itself.
However now the functions appear in a random order in the generated PDF
and the package documentation entry is placed in between the functions,
when I would like
On 01/12/2010 7:27 AM, Aleksi Kallio wrote:
Hello,
I have created my own R package and written the documentation in Rd
format for each of the functions plus the package itself.
However now the functions appear in a random order in the generated PDF
and the package documentation entry is placed
On Dec 1, 2010, at 2:39 AM, Martin Maechler wrote:
sapply() stems from S / S+ times and hence has a long tradition.
In spite of that I think that it should be enhanced...
As the subject mentions, sapply() produces a matrix in cases
where the list components of the lapply(.) results are of
On Wed, 1 Dec 2010, Aleksi Kallio wrote:
Hello,
I have created my own R package and written the documentation in Rd
format for each of the functions plus the package itself.
However now the functions appear in a random order in the generated PDF
and the package documentation entry is placed
I think an even better approach would be to extract the
simplification component out of sapply, so that could write
sapply - function(...) simplify(lapply(...))
(although obviously some arguments would go to lapply and some to simplify).
The advantage of this would be that you could use the
-Original Message-
From: r-devel-boun...@r-project.org
[mailto:r-devel-boun...@r-project.org] On Behalf Of Hadley Wickham
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 6:27 AM
To: Martin Maechler
Cc: r-de...@stat.math.ethz.ch
Subject: Re: [Rd] RFC: sapply() limitation from vector to
Hi,
R CMD Rd2dvi --pdf mypackage
I get the pages in alphabetical order, except that the package page
comes first.
I was actually using an ancient version, 2.5. Updating to a later one moved the
package page first.
So now the output I'm getting is good enough. I would still like to reorder
Hi again,
And sorry for the spam.
So now the output I'm getting is good enough. I would still like to reorder
functions so that they appear in a more logical order, so if anyone has
ideas, please share!
Newer R versions also add an index page at the end. In my case it is obsolete,
so
This post asks members of the R community, users and developers,
to comment on issues related to the GNU Public License
and R community policies more generally.
The GPL says very little about protecting the the rights of original
contributors by not disseminating misleading information about
On 01/12/2010 12:25 PM, Aleksi Kallio wrote:
Hi again,
And sorry for the spam.
So now the output I'm getting is good enough. I would still like to
reorder functions so that they appear in a more logical order, so if anyone has ideas,
please share!
Newer R versions also add an index page
A downside of that approach is that lapply(X,...) can
cause a lot of unneeded memory to be allocated (length(X)
SEXP's). Those SEXP's would be tossed out by simplify() but
the peak memory usage would remain high. sapply() can
be written to avoid the intermediate list structure.
But the
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 2:53 PM, Douglas Bates ba...@stat.wisc.edu wrote:
Against my better judgement I will try to correct a misconception. I
fear that my message will only fan the flames but I also think that
if we are to be subjected to long, drawn out, personal attacks on this
subject
Hi, Dominick, et al.:
I know nothing about about Rcpp, it's history and the
contributions of Dominick and anyone else. I think everyone should be
appropriately recognized for their contributions.
However, I feel compelled to briefly outline personal experiences
with
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 7:55 PM, Gabor Grothendieck
ggrothendi...@gmail.comwrote:
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 7:20 PM, Dominick Samperi djsamp...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 6:37 PM, Gabor Grothendieck
ggrothendi...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Hadley Wickham
We need more information, at the minimum the line which compiled
CHMfactor.o. Can you make the install log (you may need to run this
again) and your etc/Makeconf available on-line?
At first sight your C++ compiler is missing -m64: the R-admin manual
says
'For a 64-bit target add -m64 to
Good morning Dominick,
I don't use the Rcpp package and have only the vaguest notions of its
history.
One of your requests is that your name might be removed from the project as
you no longer wish to be associated with it. However, I suspect that it is
simply not legal to remove your copyright
On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 20:24 -0500, Dominick Samperi wrote:
snip /
Just to be clear I have never used the package and am not truly
commenting on this particular case but only the general ideas in this
thread. Also I was not suggesting that the comments in the code were
purposefully
On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 19:25 +0200, Aleksi Kallio wrote:
Hi again,
And sorry for the spam.
So now the output I'm getting is good enough. I would still like
to reorder functions so that they appear in a more logical order, so
if anyone has ideas, please share!
The manual isn't meant to be
19 matches
Mail list logo
