similar to: RFC for package PopCon: a popularity contest for R and packages

Hello all, I've developed a prototype package called PopCon (short for popularity contest), a package for tracking the popularity of R and its packages. I'd like this work to be similar in spirit to the Debian package popularity-contest: http://popcon.debian.org/. Once Popcon is loaded, it captures two kinds of information from the user and stores it into a cache: the names of the

Can anyone explain what I'm missing here? max(pp1 <- package_version(c("0.99999911.3","1.0.4","1.0.5"))) ## [1] ?1.0.4? max(pp2 <- package_version(c("1.0.3","1.0.4","1.0.5"))) ## [1] ?1.0.5? I've looked at ?package_version , to no avail. Since max() goes to .Primitive("max") I'm having trouble figuring out

Hi, I installed R 3.0.0 on a Windows 2008 Server. When I submitted the following code in R64, library(tools) testInstalledBasic(scope="devel") I get the following message in the R Console: > library(tools) > testInstalledBasic(scope="devel") running tests of consistency of as/is.* creating ?isas-tests.R? running code in ?isas-tests.R? comparing ?isas-tests.Rout? to

Hi Kurt, On 25 April 2024 at 08:07, Kurt Hornik wrote: | >>>>> Herv? Pag?s writes: | | > Hi Kurt, | > Is it intended that numeric_version() returns an error by default on | > non-character input in R 4.4.0? | | Dear Herve, yes, that's the intention. | | > It seems that I can turn this into a warning by setting | >

With R-2.12.2 on Linux: > z <- data.frame(Version=package_version(c("0.1")), row.names=c("pkgA")) > all.equal(z, z) # expect TRUE Error: evaluation nested too deeply: infinite recursion / options(expressions=)? > traceback() ... lots of lines in a 3-cycle ... 6: all.equal.list(target, current, ...) 5: all.equal.default(target[[i]], current[[i]],

Summary: I think you've found a bug. On 26/11/2014, 5:39 PM, Geoff Lee wrote: > Hi > > > > I'm still exploring the R programming universe, so if this is being asked in > the wrong place, or in the wrong way (e.g. too verbose or lacking in crucial > detail or in the wrong format) please let me know > > > > I am trying to understand when the version

On 26/11/2014, 7:38 PM, Geoff Lee wrote: > Many thanks Duncan for the quick response. A little too quick, it seems... > > A bug is a relief in a way. I've been digging my way deeper into this (and > learning more as I go) for several days now - but it is a diversion from (a > diversion from) my main goal :-( > > Is there somewhere specific I should report or log the

Dear R devs, I installed the recent devel R to test a package error when I intercept this warning when loading packages: ``` Warning in .make_numeric_version(x, strict, .standard_regexps()$valid_numeric_version) : invalid non-character version specification 'x' (type: double) ``` After a long debugging, I realize that `numeric_version` in base does not support numerical input x by

Hi I'm still exploring the R programming universe, so if this is being asked in the wrong place, or in the wrong way (e.g. too verbose or lacking in crucial detail or in the wrong format) please let me know I am trying to understand when the version constraints for packages which appear in the Imports field of a DESCRIPTION file are checked. Along the way I've hit a snag

On 26/11/2014, 8:29 PM, Geoff Lee wrote: > Hi Duncan > > The difference is that in your call to loadNamespace, the versionCheck list > has 3 components (name, op and version), whereas the documentation only > mentions 2 (op and version). > loadNamespace 'works' for me provided I add a third component to the list > (even a nonsense one). > > What I haven't

I know that it has been discussed in the past, but I wanted to ask to revisit the idea of exporting is.formula <- function(x) inherits(x, "formula") from 'stats', parallel to is.data.frame() in 'base', given how widely formulae are used these days in conjunction with data frames, even outside of model fitting functions (e.g., for split-apply). One could argue

Many thanks Duncan for the quick response. A bug is a relief in a way. I've been digging my way deeper into this (and learning more as I go) for several days now - but it is a diversion from (a diversion from) my main goal :-( Is there somewhere specific I should report or log the bug or will that happen from this mailing-list automatically? (I have seen the Bug Tracking link on the

Hi Duncan The difference is that in your call to loadNamespace, the versionCheck list has 3 components (name, op and version), whereas the documentation only mentions 2 (op and version). loadNamespace 'works' for me provided I add a third component to the list (even a nonsense one). What I haven't yet had the fortitude to do is track down through the code to see what the arguments

I have watched the discussions about the size of the R user base with much interest. One more source of data that might help is the voluntary data capture in Debian. If you are a Debian user, you should volunteer information. It's very easy: as root, say: # apt-get install popularity-contest The results are found at: http://popcon.debian.org/main/math/by_inst This shows that of the

Hi Duncan, Many thanks (yet again). With the hint given by your earlier email (viz that currently loadNamespace expects a 3rd component called name in the list that is used for the versionCheck argument) I had another look at what was going on with my toy examples yesterday evening. I'm still working on my issue, but thus far I have: 1) Confirmed that internal calls to loadNamespace

I've noticed something in R devel which seems a little off and not the behavior I see in 4.4.0 or earlier versions. With numeric_versions that have long (>8 digit) final components max and min return the first element and not the max or min: In devel: > max(numeric_version(c("1.0.1.100000000", "1.0.3.100000000", "1.0.2.100000000"))) [1] ?1.0.1.100000000?

? Sat, 27 Apr 2024 13:56:58 -0500 Jonathan Keane <jkeane at gmail.com> ?????: > In devel: > > max(numeric_version(c("1.0.1.100000000", "1.0.3.100000000", > "1.0.2.100000000"))) > [1] ?1.0.1.100000000? > > max(numeric_version(c("1.0.1.10000000", "1.0.3.10000000", > "1.0.2.10000000"))) > [1]

Am 22.03.2018 um 11:21 schrieb Markus Eckerl: > Hi, > > like I have written in the subject line I want to limit the pop login > per user and per minute. > > Currently I am having several customers which are fetching their email > with popcon (MS Exchange). > > This has never been a problem. But... They all have got the same > "technician" which take care

I would like to get some idea of which R-packages are popular, and what R is used for in general. Are there any statistics available on which R packages are downloaded often, or is there something like a package-survey? Something similar to http://popcon.debian.org/ maybe? Any tips are welcome! ----- Jeroen Ooms * Dept. of Methodology and Statistics * Utrecht University Visit

We want Ogg! :) Details... *Want to win a trip to South By Southwest 2010? Or maybe a Flip Mino video camera? Read on...* *Open Video in 60 Seconds* <http://contest.openvideoalliance.org/> The Open Video Alliance is holding a video contest<http://contest.openvideoalliance.org/>. To enter, just make a video spot explaining open video in 60 seconds or less. Then upload it anywhere and