Working on my 'Bessel' package, I've re-detected today, that
indeed even C99 standard GLIBC does not contain, a complex
number version of
log1p()
Further missing in current R, are, basically these
> z <- 1 + 2i
> log1p(z)
Error in log1p(z) : unimplemented complex function
> expm1(z)
Error in
Dear John,
fully agreed! In the global environment I always keep my
"data-variables" in a data.frame. However, if I look in help I like
examples that start with the particular aspects of a function. It is
important to know, if a function offers a data argument, but in the
first line I don't n
There seem to be a variety of opinions about style in this case; do
you omit the apostrophe ("NAs") because it's not a possessive or a
contraction, or do you include the apostrophe ("NA's") to clearly
distinguish the acronym from the plural form?
I personally prefer "NAs" to "NA's" but both are d
Dear Heinz,
--
> On Dec 17, 2018, at 10:19 AM, Heinz Tuechler wrote:
>
> Dear All,
>
> do you think that use of a data argument is best practice in the example
> below?
No, but it is *normally* or *usually* the best option, in my opinion.
Best,
Hello, this is quite a minor issue but as summary() is in all likelihood
one of the most widely used functions in R I decided to email this list.
When producing a count of missing values, summary() in English generates an
unnecessary and grammatically incorrect apostrophe (NA's rather than NAs)
in
Dear package developers,
the CRAN incoming queue will be closed from Dec 21, 2018 to Jan 02,
2019. Hence package submissions are only possible before and after that
period.
Best,
Uwe Ligges
(for the CRAN team)
__
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
Dear All,
do you think that use of a data argument is best practice in the example
below?
regards,
Heinz
### trivial example
plotwithline <- function(x, y) {
plot(x, y)
abline(lm(y~x)) ## data argument?
}
set.seed(25)
df0 <- data.frame(x=rnorm(20), y=rnorm(20))
plotwithline(df0[['x
Dear Steve,
Since this relates as well to the message I posted a couple of minutes before
yours, I agree that it’s possible to phrase “best practices” too categorically.
In the current case, I believe that it’s reasonable to say that specifying the
data argument is “generally” or “usually” the
> From: Thomas Yee [mailto:t@auckland.ac.nz]
>
> Thanks for the discussion. I do feel quite strongly that
> the variables should always be a part of a data frame.
This seems pretty much a decision for R core, and I think it's useful to have
raised the issue.
But I, er, feel strongly that
Dear Martin,
I think that everyone agrees that it’s generally preferable to use the data
argument to lm() and I have nothing significant to add to the substance of the
discussion, but I think that it’s a mistake not to add to the current examples,
for the following reasons:
(1) Relegating exam
> David Hugh-Jones
> on Sat, 15 Dec 2018 08:47:28 +0100 writes:
> I would argue examples should encourage good
> practice. Beginners ought to learn to keep data in data
> frames and not to overuse attach().
Note there's no attach() there in any of these examples!
>
Dear Marta,
Add the @noRd tag to the Roxygen documentation of the function.
Best regards,
ir. Thierry Onkelinx
Statisticus / Statistician
Vlaamse Overheid / Government of Flanders
INSTITUUT VOOR NATUUR- EN BOSONDERZOEK / RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR NATURE AND
FOREST
Team Biometrie & Kwaliteitszorg /
12 matches
Mail list logo
