search for: _part_

hi, I've noticed a small problem trying to include postscript plots generated by R into a latex document. Specifically, the latex package graphicsx allow you to specify the bounding box of the postscript file, so that you can just show _part_ of the postscript file if you tell it to also clip the area outside of the bounding box. I've previously used this LaTeX feature without problems on postscript files produced e.g. by gnuplot. However, this doesn't work on R files. Here is a simple example: % R --vanilla R : Copyright...

...hen Eglen <stephen@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> writes: > > > > > generated by R into a latex document. Specifically, the latex package > > > > graphicsx allow you to specify the bounding box of the postscript > > > > file, so that you can just show _part_ of the postscript file if you > > > > tell it to also clip the area outside of the bounding box. > > ... > > > Ow. This stems from the use of "initclip" in the R-generated PS. One > > > shouldn't do that, one should bracket clippe...

...er way. Just think of those guys, who implement nice languages for distributed computing (e.g. http://www.mozart-oz.org/) and ask yourself, why <b>exactly this</b> audience should be excited with LLVM? Why should they find some nice LLVM optimization specific for the applications, where _part_ of the code might be EITHER executed at current host OR outsourced to some other host, because, say, current host is just quite busy? -- Maybe you'll find answer more suitable for you, then I try to formulate in Idea 10 :) -- Best regards, Valery A.Khamenya mailto:khamen...

...n@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> writes: > > > > > > > generated by R into a latex document. Specifically, the latex package > > > > > graphicsx allow you to specify the bounding box of the postscript > > > > > file, so that you can just show _part_ of the postscript file if you > > > > > tell it to also clip the area outside of the bounding box. > > > ... > > > > Ow. This stems from the use of "initclip" in the R-generated PS. One > > > > shouldn't do that, one s...

On Wed, 7 Jan 2004, Valery A.Khamenya wrote: > just imagine, that we have Linux cluster, and we have two functions in > one module (`f' and `g'). If they are about to be executed at one host, > then one is allowed to do very aggressive interprocedural > optimizations between these `f' and `g'. However if `g' should be > "outsourced to" (i.e.

Hello. I''m a nobody. I use Linux. I have a hard-drive. I want the best / sexiest / what ever fs for my hard-drive, as it isn''t one of those flashy flash drives, which I presume don''t need an fs (???). I was THRILLED that the ZFS for Linux thread started. And, I was equally horrified (and sufficiently annoyed that I am starting this new thread) when it degraded in to

I''ve been working to try to improve the write-ahead log''s performance, and I found that the bottleneck addresses in the checksum items, especially when we want to make a random write on a large file, e.g a 4G file. Then a idea for this suggested by Chris is to use sub transaction ids and just to log the part of inode that had changed since either the last log commit or the last