Displaying 14 results from an estimated 14 matches for "expr3".
Did you mean:
expr
2006 Oct 27
2
all.names() and all.vars(): sorting order of functions' return vector
...] "x1" "x2"
> expr2 <- expression(x3 <- 0.5 * x1 - 0.7 * x2)
> all.names(expr2)
[1] "<-" "x3" "-" "*" "x1" "*" "x2"
> all.vars(expr2)
[1] "x3" "x1" "x2"
> expr3 <- expression(x3 ~ 0.5 * x1 - 0.7 * x2)
> all.names(expr3)
[1] "~" "x3" "-" "*" "x1" "*" "x2"
> all.vars(expr3)
[1] "x3" "x1" "x2"
>
For all.names(expr2) and all.names(expr3) I wou...
2006 Jul 18
2
I think this is a bug
Hello!
I work with:
R : Copyright 2006, The R Foundation for
Statistical Computing
Version 2.3.1 (2006-06-01)
On Windows XP Professional (Version 2002) SP2
I think there is a bug in the conditional
execution if (expr1) {expr2} else {expr3}
If I try:
"if (expr1) expr2 else expr3"
it works well but when I put the expression expr2
and expr3 between {} I receive an error message
like this one:
"Erreur dans parse(file, n = -1, NULL, "?") :
erreur de syntaxe ? la ligne
4: }
5: else"
...which...
2023 Jan 11
1
return value of {....}
I am more than a little puzzled by your question.
In the construct {expr1; expr2; expr3} all of the
expressions expr1, expr2, and expr3 are evaluated,
in that order. That's what curly braces are FOR.
When you want some expressions evaluated in a
specific order, that's why and when you use curly
braces. If that's not what you want, don't use them.
Complaining about it...
1997 Apr 30
2
R-beta: Small problems with R0.49
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 1856 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-help/attachments/19970430/db1498ee/attachment.pl
2005 Jun 03
2
Everyone-- the scoop on Bison/Flex --
Hey, everybody---
Ignorance CAN be bliss, at least for a while, but, .... Just so you
know...
A week or two ago, some upgrades to the expression parser (you know, the
expressions you put in $[ ... ] in your extensions.conf file) that I
submitted, have been merged into the CVS HEAD of the source.
Hopefully, for around 99.9% of you, it won't make any difference to you.
The Makefile has also
2011 Apr 04
1
Deriving formula with deriv
Dear list,
Hi,
I am trying to get the second derivative of a logistic formula, in R summary
the model is given as :
###
>$nls
>Nonlinear regression model
>model: data ~ logistic(time, A, mu, lambda, addpar)
>data: parent.frame()
> A mu lambda
>0.53243 0.03741 6.94296
###
but I know the formula used is
#
2001 May 30
2
environments
I would like to be able, inside a function, to create a new function, and
use it as part of a formula as an argument to, say, gnls or nlme. for
example:
MyTop <- function(data=dta) {
Cexp <- function(dose,A,B,m){...}
Model <- as.formula(paste("y","~ Cexp(",paste(formals(Cexp),collapse
=", "),")"))
MyCall <-
2023 Jan 13
1
return value of {....}
R's
{ expr1; expr2; expr3}
acts much like C's
( expr1, expr2, expr3)
E.g.,
$ cat a.c
#include <stdio.h>
int main(int argc, char* argv[])
{
double y = 10 ;
double x = (printf("Starting... "), y = y + 100, y * 20);
printf("Done: x=%g, y=%g\n", x, y);
return 0;
}
$ gcc -Wall...
2023 Jan 09
5
return value of {....}
Dear members,
I have the following code:
> TB <- {x <- 3;y <- 5}
> TB
[1] 5
It is consistent with the documentation: For {, the result of the last expression evaluated. This has the visibility of the last evaluation.
But both x AND y are created, but the "return value" is y. How can this be advantageous for solving practical problems?
2001 Oct 07
1
Bug in Deriv? (PR#1119)
...scal)),"x")
expression({
.expr4 <- exp(-x - xmid/scal) #### Wrong !!!!
> deriv(~offv+Asym/(1+exp(-x/scal+xmid/scal)),"x")
expression({
.expr5 <- exp(-x/scal + xmid/scal) ## Correct
> deriv(~offv+Asym/(1+exp((xmid-x)/scal)),"x")
expression({
.expr3 <- exp((xmid - x)/scal) ## Coorrect
> deriv(~offv+Asym/(1+exp(-1.0*(x-xmid)/scal)),"x")
expression({
.expr5 <- exp(-1 * (x - xmid)/scal) ## Correct
---------------------------------------
Dr. Dieter Menne
Biomed Software
72074 Tübingen
Tel (49) (7071) 52176
FAX (49) (7071...
2015 May 20
2
[LLVMdev] RFC: New EH representation for MSVC compatibility
...ng how bad the growth can be, the problem case is
> finally-inside-finally, not try-inside-try:
>
>
>
> foo() {
>
> try {
>
> expr1;
>
> } finally {
>
> try {
>
> expr2;
>
> } finally {
>
> try {
>
> expr3;
>
> } finally {
>
> try {
>
> expr4;
>
> } finally
>
> …
>
> }
>
> }
>
> }
>
> }
>
> }
>
>
>
> With duplication, the non-EH path through foo will include each of e...
2015 May 19
2
[LLVMdev] RFC: New EH representation for MSVC compatibility
I think adding transitions to cleanupblocks on the normal execution path
would be an optimization barrier. Most passes would see the cleanupblock
instruction and run the other way. It's definitely appealing from the
perspective of getting the smallest possible code, but I'm OK with having
no more than two copies of everything in the finally block.
I think with the addition of the
2002 Aug 07
2
Constructing titles from list of expressions
Hello!
I have the following problem:
I have a function to construct three surfaceplots with a marker for an optimum,
each of the plots has as title paste("Estimated ",pred.var.lab," for
",var.lab[1]," vs. ",var.lab[2],sep="") with different var.lab[1,2] each time.
My problem is now that I need to allow for plotmath expressions in the
variables pred.var.lab
2023 Jan 12
4
return value of {....}
Hello Akshay,
R is quite inspired by LISP, where this is a common thing. It is not in fact that {...} returned something, rather any expression evalulates to some value, and for a compound statement that is the last evaluated expression.
{...} might be seen as similar to LISPs (begin ...).
Now this is a very different thing compared to {...} in something like C, even if it looks or behaves