>> This affects _many_ *.Rout.save checks in packages.
I assume this is in the R-devel branch.
I've got an addition to survival nearly ready to go (faster concordance
calculation). At what point should I should I switch over to the newer
version, fix up my .out files etc, to best mesh with th
Taking up the thread that Ben Bolker started on Feb.5 ...
In the mean time, with lots of contributions from Petr Savicky,
we have fixed the bug (and even related bugs that were not
reported).
The consequence is that a sizable fraction of all (numeric) R
outputs does change (very) slightly, typica
On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 09:56:18AM +0100, Martin Maechler wrote:
[...]
> Namely, one important purpose of the test is to ensure that e.g.
>
> print(3.597, digits = 3)
>
> is printed as 3.6 and not 3.60
>
> Now I have had -- since 1997 at least -- an R version of
> scientific() for more easy
On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 09:56:18AM +0100, Martin Maechler wrote:
> > Ben Bolker
> > on Sat, 5 Feb 2011 15:58:09 -0500 writes:
>
> > A bug was recently posted to the R bug database (which
> > probably would better have been posted as a query here) as
> > to why this happe
On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 09:56:18AM +0100, Martin Maechler wrote:
> > Ben Bolker
> > on Sat, 5 Feb 2011 15:58:09 -0500 writes:
>
> > A bug was recently posted to the R bug database (which
> > probably would better have been posted as a query here) as
> > to why this happe
> Ben Bolker
> on Sat, 5 Feb 2011 15:58:09 -0500 writes:
> A bug was recently posted to the R bug database (which
> probably would better have been posted as a query here) as
> to why this happens:
>> print(7.921,digits=2)
> [1] 8
>> print(7.92,digits=2)
A bug was recently posted to the R bug database (which probably would
better have been posted as a query here) as to why this happens:
> print(7.921,digits=2)
[1] 8
> print(7.92,digits=2)
[1] 7.9
Two things I *haven't* done to help make sense of this for myself are
(1) writing out the binary
