search for: corer

> > And indeed I think you are right on spot and this would mean > > that indeed the implicit class > > "matrix" should rather become c("matrix", "array"). > > I've made up my mind (and not been contradicted by my fellow R > corers) to try go there for R 4.0.0 next April. I'm not enthusiastic about matrices extending arrays. If a matrix is an array, then shouldn't all vectors in R, be arrays too? > #mockup > class (1) [1] "numeric" "array" Which is a bad idea. It contradicts the centra...

...icated workarounds due to a >> commit from 2013 >> (https://github.com/wch/r-source/commit/4f13e5325dfbcb9fc8f55fc6027af9ae9c7750a3). >> And it only seems to succeed if the build directory is the >> same as the source directory. (I have not tried, as I as R-corer do work with svn, but) If this is true, then that is a pity indeed. I have stopped of *ever* building in the source directory many years ago, and I'm pretty sure that is the case for the vast majority of R-corers. >> Makefile.in has some odd stuff that might be related, >>...

....... >> >> And indeed I think you are right on spot and this would mean >> that indeed the implicit class >> "matrix" should rather become c("matrix", "array"). > > I've made up my mind (and not been contradicted by my fellow R > corers) to try go there for R 4.0.0 next April. > > I've found the few places in base R that needed a change (to > pass 'make check-all' in the R sources) and found that indeed a > overzealous check in 'Matrix' needed also a change (a place > where the checking code...

...... > > > > And indeed I think you are right on spot and this would mean > > that indeed the implicit class > > "matrix" should rather become c("matrix", "array"). > > I've made up my mind (and not been contradicted by my fellow R > corers) to try go there for R 4.0.0 next April. I can't seem to find the previous thread, so would you mind being a bit more explicit here? Do you mean adding "array" to the implicit class? Or adding it to the explicit class? Or adding it to inherits? i.e. which of the following results...

...spot and this would mean >>>> that indeed the implicit class >>>> "matrix" should rather become c("matrix", "array"). >>> >>> I've made up my mind (and not been contradicted by my fellow R >>> corers) to try go there for R 4.0.0 next April. >>> >>> I've found the few places in base R that needed a change (to >>> pass 'make check-all' in the R sources) and found that indeed a >>> overzealous check in 'Matrix' needed als...

Thanks Martin and Peter, I agree that we can be careful and narrow and still see a nice improvement in behavior. While Herve's point is valid and I understand his frustration, I think staying within the matrix vs c(matrix, array) space is the right scope for this work in terms of fiddling with inheritance. As another point, I don't know off the top of my head of any other classes which

Dear R-devel, I checked out a recent copy of R via Subversion and made a few changes to the code. I wanted to commit them locally to my repo, just to stay organized and keep them separate from other changes I plan to make. However, I was not able to commit them because I don't think SVN allows this? Plan B, check out a Git mirror of R, https://github.com/wch/r-source/ It has some

...sh this at the moment. Is the > >> behavior to > >> > ignore new inclusions intentional? Could there be an argument to > get > >> > different behavior? > >> > >> As you did not get an answer yet, ..., some remarks by an > >> R-corer who has tweaked library() behavior in the past : > >> > >> - The `include.only = *` argument to library() has been a > >> *relatively* recent addition {given the 25+ years of R history}: > >> > >> It was part of the extensive new features by Luke T...

...should be slightly > changed .... > > And indeed I think you are right on spot and this would mean > that indeed the implicit class > "matrix" should rather become c("matrix", "array"). I've made up my mind (and not been contradicted by my fellow R corers) to try go there for R 4.0.0 next April. I've found the few places in base R that needed a change (to pass 'make check-all' in the R sources) and found that indeed a overzealous check in 'Matrix' needed also a change (a place where the checking code assume class(<matrix...

Full_Name: Jeffrey Racine Version: 2.6.1 and previous... OS: FreeBSD Submission from: (NULL) (130.113.139.86) Hi. I almost feel bad reporting this, but here goes. The summary() for lm() (and possibly others?) uses a capitalized `S' in Multiple R-Squared but a lowercase `s' in Adjusted R-squared. For instance, Residual standard error: 0.5608 on 202 degrees of freedom Multiple

.... Is the behavior to >> >> > ignore new inclusions intentional? Could there be an argument to get >> >> > different behavior? >> >> >> >> As you did not get an answer yet, ..., some remarks by an >> >> R-corer who has tweaked library() behavior in the past : >> >> >> >> - The `include.only = *` argument to library() has been a >> >> *relatively* recent addition {given the 25+ years of R history}: >> >> >> >> It was part...

...;> And indeed I think you are right on spot and this would mean >>> that indeed the implicit class >>> "matrix" should rather become c("matrix", "array"). >> >> I've made up my mind (and not been contradicted by my fellow R >> corers) to try go there for R 4.0.0 next April. >> >> I've found the few places in base R that needed a change (to >> pass 'make check-all' in the R sources) and found that indeed a >> overzealous check in 'Matrix' needed also a change (a place >> wher...

...;> And indeed I think you are right on spot and this would mean >>> that indeed the implicit class >>> "matrix" should rather become c("matrix", "array"). >> >> I've made up my mind (and not been contradicted by my fellow R >> corers) to try go there for R 4.0.0 next April. > > I can't seem to find the previous thread, so would you mind being a > bit more explicit here? Do you mean adding "array" to the implicit > class? It's late in Europe ;-) That's my understanding. I think the plan i...

Full_Name: Wacek Kusnierczyk Version: 2.10.0 r48365 OS: Ubuntu 8.04 Linux 32bit Submission from: (NULL) (129.241.110.141) sprintf has a documented limit on strings included in the output using the format '%s'. It appears that there is a limit on the length of strings included with, e.g., the format '%d' beyond which surprising things happen (output modified for conciseness):

In R version 2.6.1 (2007-11-26) and R version 2.6.1 Patched (2008-01-19 r44061) on openSUSE 10.2 (X86-64) > gctorture() > proc.time() Error: protect(): protection stack overflow The problem with this is that then R CMD check --use-gct foo ALWAYS FAILS with > cat("Time elapsed: ", proc.time() - get("ptime", pos = 'CheckExEnv'),"\n") Error in

Diverted from ESS-help. It is really about R's LANGUAGE, locales and then a wish for sessionInfo() : >>>>> Sparapani, Rodney <rsparapa at mcw.edu> >>>>> on Thu, 20 Feb 2014 19:39:33 +0000 writes: >> Just guessing: perhaps this is something that is set when >> R is initialized and not queried every time something is >>

...; >>>> that indeed the implicit class > >>>> "matrix" should rather become c("matrix", "array"). > >>> > >>> I've made up my mind (and not been contradicted by my fellow R > >>> corers) to try go there for R 4.0.0 next April. > >>> > >>> I've found the few places in base R that needed a change (to > >>> pass 'make check-all' in the R sources) and found that indeed a > >>> overzealous check in '...

Have I been sleeping in class? rw1071 from CRAN, windows XP incidencia is made by a call to tapply > class(incidencia) [1] "array" > incidencia <- unclass(incidencia) > class(incidencia) [1] "array" Kjetil Halvorsen

...spot and this would mean >>>> that indeed the implicit class >>>> "matrix" should rather become c("matrix", "array"). >>> >>> I've made up my mind (and not been contradicted by my fellow R >>> corers) to try go there for R 4.0.0 next April. >> >> I can't seem to find the previous thread, so would you mind being a >> bit more explicit here? Do you mean adding "array" to the implicit >> class? > It's late in Europe ;-) &g...

...gt;> that indeed the implicit class > >>>>> "matrix" should rather become c("matrix", "array"). > >>>> > >>>> I've made up my mind (and not been contradicted by my fellow R > >>>> corers) to try go there for R 4.0.0 next April. > > >>> I can't seem to find the previous thread, so would you mind being a > >>> bit more explicit here? Do you mean adding "array" to the implicit > >>> class? > > >&gt...