search for: arrappli

I see in the archives that the attachment cannot pass. So, here is the code: 8<---- stopifnot_new <- function (...) { mc <- match.call() n <- length(mc)-1 if (n == 0L) return(invisible()) Dparse <- function(call, cutoff = 60L) { ch <- deparse(call, width.cutoff = cutoff) if (length(ch) > 1L) paste(ch[1L],

>>>>> Herv? Pag?s <hpages at fredhutch.org> >>>>> on Wed, 3 May 2017 12:08:26 -0700 writes: > On 05/03/2017 12:04 PM, Herv? Pag?s wrote: >> Not sure why the performance penalty of nonstandard evaluation would >> be more of a concern here than for something like switch(). > which is actually a primitive. So it seems that

Hello, I am a new on this list, so I introduce myself very briefly: my background is applied mathematics, more precisely scientific calculus applied for modeling metabolic systems, I am author/maintainer of few packages (Deriv, rmumps, arrApply). Now, on the subject of this discussion, I must say that I don't really understand Peter's argument: >>> To do it differently,

>>>>> Serguei Sokol <sokol at insa-toulouse.fr> >>>>> on Mon, 15 May 2017 13:14:34 +0200 writes: > I see in the archives that the attachment cannot pass. > So, here is the code: [....... MM: I needed to reformat etc to match closely to the current source code which is in

Le 15/05/2017 ? 15:37, Martin Maechler a ?crit : >>>>>> Serguei Sokol <sokol at insa-toulouse.fr> >>>>>> on Mon, 15 May 2017 13:14:34 +0200 writes: > > I see in the archives that the attachment cannot pass. > > So, here is the code: > > [....... MM: I needed to reformat etc to match closely to > the current