Dear Jeff,
On 2022-07-28 11:12 a.m., Jeff Newmiller wrote:
No, in this case I think I needed the "obvious" breakdown. Still digesting,
though... I would prefer that if an arbitrary selection had been made that it be explicit
.. the NA should be replaced with zero if the singular.ok argument
No, in this case I think I needed the "obvious" breakdown. Still digesting,
though... I would prefer that if an arbitrary selection had been made that it
be explicit .. the NA should be replaced with zero if the singular.ok argument
is TRUE, rather than making that interpretation in
> Bill Dunlap
> on Sun, 24 Jul 2022 08:51:09 -0700 writes:
> I think the intent of this code was to see if the formula
> had solely a literal 1 on the right hand side. Then
> !identical(pp[[3]], 1) would do it, avoiding the overhead
> of calling deparse. Note that
Dear Jeff,
On 2022-07-28 1:31 a.m., Jeff Newmiller wrote:
But "disappearing" is not what NA is supposed to do normally. Why is it being
treated that way here?
NA has a different meaning here than in data.
By default, in glm() the argument singular.ok is TRUE, and so estimates
are provided
Hi, Richard et al.:
On 7/28/22 1:50 AM, Richard O'Keefe wrote:
What do you mean by "a list that I can understand"?
A quick tally of the number of XML elements by identifier:
1 echoedSearchRetrieveRequest
1 frbrGrouping
1 maximumRecords
1 nextRecordPosition
1 numberOfRecords
1 query
1 records
1
I'm retired, and I had an hour on my hands while tea cooked and my
granddaughter did her homework, and I just *love* showing off how helpful I
am.
Good news: someone finally looked at your data.
(That would be me.)
Bad news: it's going to be a lot of work to do what you want to, and YOU
6 matches
Mail list logo
