search for: behavioiur

...quot;method" name wilcox.test(rnorm(10), exact=FALSE, correct=FALSE) wilcox.test(rnorm(10), exact=TRUE, correct=FALSE) From all of these I am pretty sure the 1st one is likely unintended, so attaching a small patch to adjust it. Can also try patching others if consensus is reached that the behavioiur has to be modified. Kind regards, Karolis Koncevi?ius. --- Index: wilcox.test.R =================================================================== --- wilcox.test.R (revision 77540) +++ wilcox.test.R (working copy) @@ -42,7 +42,7 @@ if(paired) { if(length(x) != length(...

...Thank you Jon for spotting this! This is an unintended consequence of https://bugs.r-project.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18697. The old behaviour of max(<numeric_version>) was to call which.max(xtfrm(x)), which first produced a permutation that sorted the entire .encode_numeric_version(x). The new behavioiur is to call which.max directly on .encode_numeric_version(x), which is faster (only O(length(x)) instead of a sort). What do the encoded version strings look like? x <- numeric_version(c( "1.0.1.100000000", "1.0.3.100000000", "1.0.2.100000000" )) # Ignore the attr...

Dear all, I am having v.4.36 of Quantreg package and I noticed strange behaviour when weights were added. Could anyone please explain me what if the results are really strange or the behavioiur is normal. As an example I am using dataset Engel from the package and my own weights. x<-engel[1:50,1] y<-engel[1:50,2] w<-c(0.00123, 0.00050, 0.00126, 0.00183, 0.00036, 0.00100, 0.00122, 0.00133, 0.01208, 0.00126, 0.00102, 0.00183, 0.00063, 0.00134, 0.00084, 0.00087, 0.00118, 0.00894, 0...

...correct=FALSE) > > wilcox.test(rnorm(10), exact=TRUE, correct=FALSE) > > > > From all of these I am pretty sure the 1st one is likely unintended, > > so attaching a small patch to adjust it. Can also try patching others if > > consensus is reached that the behavioiur has to be modified. > > > Kind regards, > > Karolis Koncevi?ius. > > > --- > > > Index: wilcox.test.R > > =================================================================== > > --- wilcox.test.R (revision 77540) > > +++ wilco...

...x.test(rnorm(10), exact=FALSE, correct=FALSE) > wilcox.test(rnorm(10), exact=TRUE, correct=FALSE) > > > From all of these I am pretty sure the 1st one is likely unintended, > so attaching a small patch to adjust it. Can also try patching others if > consensus is reached that the behavioiur has to be modified. > > Kind regards, > Karolis Koncevi?ius. > > --- > > Index: wilcox.test.R > =================================================================== > --- wilcox.test.R? (revision 77540) > +++ wilcox.test.R? (working copy) > @@ -42,7 +42,7 @@ >...

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?

...rnorm(10), exact=FALSE, correct=FALSE) > wilcox.test(rnorm(10), exact=TRUE, correct=FALSE) > From all of these I am pretty sure the 1st one is likely unintended, > so attaching a small patch to adjust it. Can also try patching others if > consensus is reached that the behavioiur has to be modified. > Kind regards, > Karolis Koncevi?ius. > --- > Index: wilcox.test.R > =================================================================== > --- wilcox.test.R (revision 77540) > +++ wilcox.test.R (working copy) > @@ -42...

...xact=TRUE, correct=FALSE) >>> >>> >>> > From all of these I am pretty sure the 1st one is likely unintended, >>> > so attaching a small patch to adjust it. Can also try patching others if >>> > consensus is reached that the behavioiur has to be modified. >>> >>> > Kind regards, >>> > Karolis Koncevi?ius. >>> >>> > --- >>> >>> > Index: wilcox.test.R >>> > =======================================================...

...> > wilcox.test(rnorm(10), exact=TRUE, correct=FALSE) >> >> >> > From all of these I am pretty sure the 1st one is likely unintended, >> > so attaching a small patch to adjust it. Can also try patching others if >> > consensus is reached that the behavioiur has to be modified. >> >> > Kind regards, >> > Karolis Koncevi?ius. >> >> > --- >> >> > Index: wilcox.test.R >> > =================================================================== >> > --- wilcox.test.R (revision...

...;> >>>> >>>> > From all of these I am pretty sure the 1st one is >>>> likely unintended, > so attaching a small patch to >>>> adjust it. Can also try patching others if > consensus >>>> is reached that the behavioiur has to be modified. >>>> >>>> > Kind regards, > Karolis Koncevi?ius. >>>>