Re: [Rd] dotcode typo? (PR#7917)

On 6/2/2005 1:27 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Whoops, spoke too soon. This definitely breaks the logic, so I won't commit. With this change the check of demo(lm.glm) in package utils fails with this error message: dead - cbind(x, n - x)

RE: [Rd] dotcode typo?

Sorry, I was looking at 2.0.1 when I meant to be looking at 2.1.0. The line numbers for the latter are 161-179 and line 164 is the one with what I think is a typo. Reid Huntsinger -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Huntsinger, Reid Sent:

Re: [Rd] dotcode typo?

Huntsinger, Reid wrote: Sorry, I was looking at 2.0.1 when I meant to be looking at 2.1.0. The line numbers for the latter are 161-179 and line 164 is the one with what I think is a typo. Reid Huntsinger -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of

Re: [Rd] dotcode typo? (PR#7917)

Duncan Murdoch wrote: Huntsinger, Reid wrote: Sorry, I was looking at 2.0.1 when I meant to be looking at 2.1.0. The line numbers for the latter are 161-179 and line 164 is the one with what I think is a typo. Reid Huntsinger -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL

Re: [Rd] dotcode typo? (PR#7917)

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Duncan Murdoch wrote: Huntsinger, Reid wrote: Sorry, I was looking at 2.0.1 when I meant to be looking at 2.1.0. The line numbers for the latter are 161-179 and line 164 is the one with what I think is a typo. Reid Huntsinger -Original Message- From: [EMAIL