> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Hello,
> I found a potential problem in R 2.1.0 (and R 2.0.1)
>
> I expect that
>
> > tmp <- FUN(x1, x2, x3, x4)
> > as.data.frame(tmp)
>
> is the same as
> > as.data.frame(FUN(x1, x2, x3, x4))
>
> since the tmp variable in this case is unnecessary.
>
> However,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Duncan Murdoch wrote:
>
>
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Dr. Michael
>>>Breuer
>>>
>>>22.04.05
>>>Ökologiezentrum der Universität Kiel
>>>Olshausenstraße 75
>>>24118 Kiel
>>>
>>>
> mnason writes:
> Full_Name: Martha Nason
> Version: 2.0.1
> OS: Windows XP
> Submission from: (NULL) (137.187.154.154)
> I am running simulations using fisher's test on 2 x c tables and a
> very small p.value from fisher's test (<2.2e-16) is returned as a
> negative number. Code follows.
Hello,
I found a potential problem in R 2.1.0 (and R 2.0.1)
I expect that
> tmp <- FUN(x1, x2, x3, x4)
> as.data.frame(tmp)
is the same as
> as.data.frame(FUN(x1, x2, x3, x4))
since the tmp variable in this case is unnecessary.
However, below I will demonstrate that under an odd set of conditi
This could be quite trivial (or could be not): when passing a character
string argument to standardGeneric, the argument is not passed properly:
dummy <- function(str){
+ setGeneric(str, function(object, ...) standardGeneric(str))
+ }
dummy("foo")
[1] "foo"
Warning message:
The body of the generi
If we are on the subject of byte compilation, let me bring a couple of
examples which have been puzzling me for some time. I'd like to know a)
if the compilation will likely to improve the performance for this type
of computations, and b) at least roughly understand the reasons for the
observed num
I noticed something in R --help that needs updating for R 2.1.0
In the changes documentation for R 2.1.0:
o BATCH on Unix no longer sets --gui="none" as the X11 module
is only loaded if needed.
But --gui=none is still documented as acceptable in R --help
[39]% R --version
R 2.1.0 (200
On Fri, April 22, 2005 7:36 pm, Peter Dalgaard said:
> Gordon Smyth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> This is just a suggestion/wish that it would be nice for the
>> F-distribution functions to recognize limiting cases for infinite
>> degrees of freedom, as the t-distribution functions already do.
>
From: "A.J. Rossini" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
You are mixing S3 and S4 paradigms. You want setMethod to define the
method, not the FunctionName.ClassOfObject S3 specification.
That just proves my newbie-ness in R programming. I would appreciate it if
you could provide me the S4 equivalent. According
Gordon Smyth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This is just a suggestion/wish that it would be nice for the
> F-distribution functions to recognize limiting cases for infinite
> degrees of freedom, as the t-distribution functions already do.
>
> The t-distribution functions recognize that df=Inf is e
Duncan Murdoch wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Dr. Michael
>> Breuer
>>
>> 22.04.05
>> Ökologiezentrum der Universität Kiel
>> Olshausenstraße 75
>> 24118 Kiel
>>
>> Dear Ladies and Sirs,
>> After updati
This is just a suggestion/wish that it would be nice for the F-distribution
functions to recognize limiting cases for infinite degrees of freedom, as
the t-distribution functions already do.
The t-distribution functions recognize that df=Inf is equivalent to the
standard normal distribution:
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dr. Michael
Breuer
22.04.05
Ökologiezentrum der Universität Kiel
Olshausenstraße 75
24118 Kiel
Dear Ladies and Sirs,
After updating the R-Windows-program (binary) by the latest version
(
Dr. Michael
Breuer
22.04.05
Ökologiezentrum der Universität Kiel
Olshausenstraße 75
24118 Kiel
Dear Ladies and Sirs,
After updating the R-Windows-program (binary) by the latest version
(2010), the R-Scripts tha
14 matches
Mail list logo
