search for: 278137

Hi! Is there a way to get a subset of a list? I looking for some function like the function available for arrays and dataframe. x<-1:10 x[-c(1,2)] for arrays or x<-data.frame(a=1,b=2) subset(x,select=-a) But one for a list x<-list(a=1,a=2) subset(x,select=-a) The second problem i have are that i want to store parmeters to the plot.default function in a list. eg.:

...ng within bounds. In some cases, it's possible such code might not even link, depending on the offsets allowed in any relocations that get used in the object files." - "The situation has not gotten friendlier to old-school pointer manipulations since https://lwn.net/Articles/278137/ was written in 2008. [This is a case where GCC optimised away a comparison involving an out-of-bounds pointer] The pattern could still be found in code exposed to malicious interlocutors in 2013: https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2013-5607" - "Pretty sure this one I...

.... In some cases, it's possible such code might not > even link, depending on the offsets allowed in any relocations that > get used in the object files." > > - "The situation has not gotten friendlier to old-school pointer > manipulations since https://lwn.net/Articles/278137/ was written in > 2008. [This is a case where GCC optimised away a comparison > involving an out-of-bounds pointer] The pattern could still be found > in code exposed to malicious interlocutors in 2013: > https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2013-5607 " > > - "Pre...

...might not > >> even link, depending on the offsets allowed in any relocations that > >> get used in the object files." > >> > >> - "The situation has not gotten friendlier to old-school pointer > >> manipulations since https://lwn.net/Articles/278137/ was written in > >> 2008. [This is a case where GCC optimised away a comparison > >> involving an out-of-bounds pointer] The pattern could still be found > >> in code exposed to malicious interlocutors in 2013: > >> https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-201...

...possible such code might not >> even link, depending on the offsets allowed in any relocations that >> get used in the object files." >> >> - "The situation has not gotten friendlier to old-school pointer >> manipulations since https://lwn.net/Articles/278137/ was written in >> 2008. [This is a case where GCC optimised away a comparison >> involving an out-of-bounds pointer] The pattern could still be found >> in code exposed to malicious interlocutors in 2013: >> https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2013-5607&quot...