On 04/05/2012 18:42, Pavel N. Krivitsky wrote:
Dear R-devel,
While tracking down some hard-to-reproduce bugs in a package I maintain,
I stumbled on a behavior change between R 2.15.0 and the current R-devel
(or SVN trunk).
In 2.15.0 and earlier, if you passed an 0-length vector of the right
On 15/05/2012 03:31, R. Michael Weylandt wrote:
In the examples for StructTS -- ($RHOME)/library/stats/man/StructTS.Rd -- could
par(mfrow = c(4, 1))
plot(log10(UKgas))
plot(cbind(fitted(fit), resids=resid(fit)), main = UK gas consumption)
become
plot(log10(UKgas))
par(mfrow = c(4, 1))
On 30/04/2012 12:37, Jouni Helske wrote:
Dear all,
I'd like to discuss about a possible bug in function StructTS of stats
package. It seems that the function returns wrong value of the
log-likelihood, as the added constant to the relevant part of the
log-likelihood is misspecified. Here is an
Thanks very much for the quick reply.
I'd like to avoid static state in the .so, which is why I'm using
the opaque pointer. It is indeed possible to convert everything to
.Call(), but the work seems unnecessary given that it used to work
just fine and I am going out of my way to pass things
Duncan,
I agree completely with don't use attach; if I could get all the
users of the survival package to agree as well the problem in question
would go away :-) I'm thinking about ways to add more effective error
surveillance.
Your suggestion was not horribly complex and I'll look into
On 16.05.2012 23:29, walcotteric wrote:
jthetzel wrote
1) Does traceback() give any hints as to where the setTime error is
coming from?
2) Zipping data sets in packages was made defunct in R 2.13.0. However, I
believe R 2.15 will still load data sets that were zipped using older
versions
I have been building R-devel daily for years. In the last week or so,
R-devel has failed make check with the error in
tests/Examples/parallel-Ex.R
The specific error is
pkgname - parallel
source(file.path(R.home(share), R, examples-header.R))
options(warn = 1)
library('parallel')
Error in
Can anyone share some opinions on test suites for R packages?
I'm looking at testthat and RUnit. Does anyone have strong opinions on
either of those.
Any additional packages I should consider?
Thanks,
Whit
__
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
On 17.05.2012 16:10, Whit Armstrong wrote:
Can anyone share some opinions on test suites for R packages?
I'm looking at testthat and RUnit. Does anyone have strong opinions on
either of those.
Any additional packages I should consider?
Yes: R CMD check does the trick. See Writing R
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 9:04 AM, Prof Brian Ripley
rip...@stats.ox.ac.uk wrote:
Seems your ancient OS (that compiler has a 6-year-old copyright date) has a
broken implementation of affinity with CPU_ZERO but not CPU_COUNT.
I've added some checks which should catch this.
Thanks a lot.
And I
On Thu, 2012-05-17 at 16:32 +0200, Uwe Ligges wrote:
Yes: R CMD check does the trick. See Writing R Extension and read
about a package's test directory. I prefer frameworks that do not
obfuscate failing test results on the CRAN check farm (as most other
frameworks I have seen).
Uwe: I don't
On 17.05.2012 16:52, Brian G. Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 2012-05-17 at 16:32 +0200, Uwe Ligges wrote:
Yes: R CMD check does the trick. See Writing R Extension and read
about a package's test directory. I prefer frameworks that do not
obfuscate failing test results on the CRAN check farm (as most
On 17/05/2012 15:48, Kasper Daniel Hansen wrote:
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 9:04 AM, Prof Brian Ripley
rip...@stats.ox.ac.uk wrote:
Seems your ancient OS (that compiler has a 6-year-old copyright date) has a
broken implementation of affinity with CPU_ZERO but not CPU_COUNT.
I've added some
Uwe Ligges ligges at statistik.tu-dortmund.de writes:
On 17.05.2012 16:52, Brian G. Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 2012-05-17 at 16:32 +0200, Uwe Ligges wrote:
Yes: R CMD check does the trick. See Writing R Extension and read
about a package's test directory. I prefer frameworks that do not
On 17.05.2012 17:56, Matthew Dowle wrote:
Uwe Liggesliggesat statistik.tu-dortmund.de writes:
On 17.05.2012 16:52, Brian G. Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 2012-05-17 at 16:32 +0200, Uwe Ligges wrote:
Yes: R CMD check does the trick. See Writing R Extension and read
about a package's test
I am happy to report that R-devel (r59358) passes make check on my platform.
And sorry for the complete mixup today el4/el5 and 4.1.2 vs 4.2.1
Thanks,
Kasper
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Prof Brian Ripley
rip...@stats.ox.ac.uk wrote:
On 17/05/2012 15:48, Kasper Daniel Hansen wrote:
On
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 8:09 AM, Prof Brian Ripley
rip...@stats.ox.ac.uk wrote:
This is getting increasingly difficult. GCC 4.6.x and 4.7.x detect a lot of
errors (especially C++ errors) that earlier versions did not -- and that
means CRAN gets a fair number of submissions that we cannot
On May 17, 2012, at 6:08 PM, Murray Stokely wrote:
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 8:09 AM, Prof Brian Ripley
rip...@stats.ox.ac.uk wrote:
This is getting increasingly difficult. GCC 4.6.x and 4.7.x detect a lot of
errors (especially C++ errors) that earlier versions did not -- and that
means CRAN
18 matches
Mail list logo
