Displaying 17 results from an estimated 17 matches for "adjudicate".
2004 Sep 24
2
[LLVMdev] Little win32/Signals.cpp patch
Someone needs to adjudicate on whether I add the #include of <cstdio> or
not. I can't test this so, Paolo/Henrik/Jeff, please let me know if I
need to add it.
Thanks,
Reid.
On Fri, 2004-09-24 at 07:08, Jeff Cohen wrote:
> But I compiled that under vc7.1 as it was!
>
> On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 15:19:22 +0200...
2004 Sep 24
4
[LLVMdev] Little win32/Signals.cpp patch
....1 and without
> STLPort, then there really isn't a choice. I have to research the issue
> myself to see if it's possible to avoid using STLPort.
>
>
> On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 07:42:51 -0700
> Reid Spencer <reid at x10sys.com> wrote:
>
> > Someone needs to adjudicate on whether I add the #include of <cstdio> or
> > not. I can't test this so, Paolo/Henrik/Jeff, please let me know if I
> > need to add it.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Reid.
> >
> > On Fri, 2004-09-24 at 07:08, Jeff Cohen wrote:
> > >...
2004 Sep 24
0
[LLVMdev] Little win32/Signals.cpp patch
.... If it is impossible to build with VC7.1 and without
STLPort, then there really isn't a choice. I have to research the issue
myself to see if it's possible to avoid using STLPort.
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 07:42:51 -0700
Reid Spencer <reid at x10sys.com> wrote:
> Someone needs to adjudicate on whether I add the #include of <cstdio> or
> not. I can't test this so, Paolo/Henrik/Jeff, please let me know if I
> need to add it.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Reid.
>
> On Fri, 2004-09-24 at 07:08, Jeff Cohen wrote:
> > But I compiled that under vc7.1 as it was!
&...
2011 Jun 15
1
When models and anova(model) disagree...
I have a situation where the parameter estimates from lrm identify a
binary predictor variable ("X") as clearly non-significant (p>0.3), but
the ANOVA of that same model gives X a chi^2-df rank of > 200, and
adjudicates X and one interaction of X and a continuous measure as
highly significant. The N is massive and X has two categories, each
with > 100,000 observations. I would expect X to have a significant
impact on the outcome.
The full model includes a large number of continuous (coded with rcs
with...
2004 Sep 24
0
[LLVMdev] Little win32/Signals.cpp patch
...n there really isn't a choice. I have to research the
>> issue
>> myself to see if it's possible to avoid using STLPort.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 07:42:51 -0700
>> Reid Spencer <reid at x10sys.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Someone needs to adjudicate on whether I add the #include of
>>> <cstdio> or
>>> not. I can't test this so, Paolo/Henrik/Jeff, please let me know if I
>>> need to add it.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Reid.
>>>
>>> On Fri, 2004-09-24 at 07:0...
2016 Apr 12
0
Documentation: Was -- identical() versus sapply()
...directly as possible.
2. A partial reply to the (fair) criticism of those who criticize docs
without offering improvements is that one may not know what
improvement to offer precisely because the docs do not make it clear.
This proposal or something similar addresses this issue. The experts
could adjudicate.
3. I agree: writing good docs is hard. Having a mechanism like this
would also help non-native English writers of software (or challenged
native writers like me!) .
4. I also think John is right, that if the right mechanism were found
so that small efforts could be accumulated, a lot of us would...
2006 Apr 05
1
Fwd: [dmuars] Eh up - March 144 results altered
Here you go, Ian......
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: G3RIR <g3rir@yahoo.com>
Date: 05-Apr-2006 20:54
Subject: [dmuars] Eh up - March 144 results altered
To: dmuars@yahoogroups.com
What's going on here.
The results of the MArch 144 UKAC have been re-published and we have lost
out considerably. Either I don't understand the rules or we have been robbed
We scored
2007 Jan 19
0
[LLVMdev] 2007 LLVM Developer's Meeting
All,
I'm pleased to announce that we will be holding a 2007 LLVM Developer's
Meeting in a few months. This is a great opportunity for everyone to
share ideas, plan the future, and get to know one another. The poll
taken at the end of last year indicates a strong interest in such a
meeting. This is just an announcement that the meeting will go forward.
Further details will be forthcoming.
2004 Sep 24
0
[LLVMdev] Little win32/Signals.cpp patch
...here really isn't a choice. I have to research the issue
> > myself to see if it's possible to avoid using STLPort.
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 07:42:51 -0700
> > Reid Spencer <reid at x10sys.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Someone needs to adjudicate on whether I add the #include of <cstdio> or
> > > not. I can't test this so, Paolo/Henrik/Jeff, please let me know if I
> > > need to add it.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Reid.
> > >
> > > On Fri, 2004-09-24 at...
2004 Sep 24
0
[LLVMdev] Little win32/Signals.cpp patch
But I compiled that under vc7.1 as it was!
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 15:19:22 +0200
Paolo Invernizzi <arathorn at fastwebnet.it> wrote:
> Adding an include for std::remove under vc7.1
>
> ---
> Paolo Invernizzi
>
2016 Apr 12
4
Documentation: Was -- identical() versus sapply()
>>>> "The documentation aims to be accurate, not necessarily clear."
> I notice that none of the critics
> in this thread have offered improvements on what is there.
This issue is as old as documented things. With software it is
particularly nasty, especially when we want the software to function
across many platforms.
Duncan has pointed out that critics need to step
2004 Sep 24
3
[LLVMdev] Little win32/Signals.cpp patch
Adding an include for std::remove under vc7.1
---
Paolo Invernizzi
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: diff.txt
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20040924/e1ca1218/attachment.txt>
2016 Apr 12
3
Documentation: Was -- identical() versus sapply()
...gt; 2. A partial reply to the (fair) criticism of those who criticize docs
> without offering improvements is that one may not know what
> improvement to offer precisely because the docs do not make it clear.
> This proposal or something similar addresses this issue. The experts
> could adjudicate.
>
> 3. I agree: writing good docs is hard. Having a mechanism like this
> would also help non-native English writers of software (or challenged
> native writers like me!) .
>
> 4. I also think John is right, that if the right mechanism were found
> so that small efforts could...
2004 Oct 18
3
[LLVMdev] Fix for non-standard variable length array + Visual C X86 specific code
Paolo Invernizzi wrote:
> There was a similar problem some time ago, and was resolved with alloca.
> I think it's a better solution to use the stack instead of the heap...
I tend to agree, but the constructors won't get called if it's an object
array -- anyway, this particular case there was no objects, just
pointers and bools so alloca should be fine. I'll leave it to
2007 Mar 23
7
[LLVMdev] June 2007 LLVM Developer's Meeting
...ou to submit your ideas. All talks are limited to 30
minutes but could be much shorter. We plan to squeeze as many of you in
as possible. The time limit helps with that. Any talks, presentations
or papers will be published on a page of the LLVM web site after the
meeting is over. You won't be adjudicated. If you think the mix of
sessions (below) isn't right, please let us know.
Session 1: Introductions - This time is reserved for in-depth
introductions of everyone attending the meeting. The thing you all
wanted most was to get to know one another. So, here's your chance. You
have 2-3 minu...
2016 Apr 12
0
Documentation: Was -- identical() versus sapply()
...reply to the (fair) criticism of those who criticize docs
>> without offering improvements is that one may not know what
>> improvement to offer precisely because the docs do not make it clear.
>> This proposal or something similar addresses this issue. The experts
>> could adjudicate.
>>
>> 3. I agree: writing good docs is hard. Having a mechanism like this
>> would also help non-native English writers of software (or challenged
>> native writers like me!) .
>>
>> 4. I also think John is right, that if the right mechanism were found
>>...
2020 Jan 15
16
[PITCH] Improvements to LLVM Decision Making
Hi Everyone,
Numerous people have been bringing up challenges with consensus driven decision making in the LLVM community. After considering this and seeing the frustrations it is causing many people, I think we should make a formal process change to help improve decision making going forward.
Here is the outline of the draft proposal