search for: discourag

tl;dr: Why are named arguments discouraged in `[.data.frame`, `[<-.data.frame` and `[[.data.frame`? (because this question is of the kind 'why is R designed like this?', I though R-devel would be more appropriate than R-help) ############################# Background: Now and then students presents there fancy functions like...

...this example, where the 'x' argument is not first: > d <- data.frame(C1=c(r1=11,r2=21,r3=31), C2=c(12,22,32)) > d[1,1:2] C1 C2 r1 11 12 > `[`(d,j=1:2,i=1) C1 C2 r1 11 12 Warning message: In `[.data.frame`(d, j = 1:2, i = 1) : named arguments other than 'drop' are discouraged > `[`(j=1:2,d,i=1) Error in (1:2)[d, i = 1] : incorrect number of dimensions > do.call("[", list(j=1:2, i=1, x=d)) Error in 1:2[i = 1, x = list(C1 = c(11, 21, 31), C2 = c(12, 22, 32))] : incorrect number of dimensions Bill Dunlap TIBCO Software wdunlap tibco.com On Wed, Nov 2...

...n in Bill's examples. Obviously my "test" was insufficient... Cheers, Henrik From: William Dunlap <wdunlap at tibco.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2018 9:10 PM To: Henrik P?rn <henrik.parn at ntnu.no> Cc: r-devel at r-project.org Subject: Re: [Rd] named arguments discouraged in `[.data.frame` and `[<-.data.frame` They can get bitten in the last two lines of this example, where the 'x' argument is not first: > d <- data.frame(C1=c(r1=11,r2=21,r3=31), C2=c(12,22,32)) > d[1,1:2] ? ?C1 C2 r1 11 12 > `[`(d,j=1:2,i=1) ? ?C1 C2 r1 11 12 Warning messa...

Indeed: Using 'weights' is not meant to indicate that the same observation is repeated 'n' times. As I showed, this gives erroneous results. Hence I suggested that it is discouraged rather than encouraged in the Details section of lm in the Reference manual. Arie ---Original Message----- On Sat, 7 Oct 2017, wolfgang.viechtbauer at maastrichtuniversity.nl wrote: Using 'weights' is not meant to indicate that the same observation is repeated 'n' times. It...

...t" was insufficient... Cheers, Henrik From: William Dunlap <wdunlap at tibco.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2018 9:10 PM To: Henrik P?rn <henrik.parn at ntnu.no> Cc: r-devel at r-project.org Subject: Re: [Rd] named arguments discouraged in `[.data.frame` and `[<-.data.frame` They can get bitten in the last two lines of this example, where the 'x' argument is not first: > d <- data.frame(C1=c(r1=11,r2=21,r3=31), C2=c(12,22,32)) > d[1,1:2] C1 C2 r1 11 12 > `[`(d,j=1:2,i=1)...

...ther part before that is correct). Sorry, I misunderstood the point you were trying to make. Best, Wolfgang -----Original Message----- From: R-devel [mailto:r-devel-bounces at r-project.org] On Behalf Of Arie ten Cate Sent: Sunday, 08 October, 2017 14:55 To: r-devel at r-project.org Subject: [Rd] Discourage the weights= option of lm with summarized data Indeed: Using 'weights' is not meant to indicate that the same observation is repeated 'n' times. As I showed, this gives erroneous results. Hence I suggested that it is discouraged rather than encouraged in the Details section of lm...

...misunderstood the point you were trying to make. > > Best, > Wolfgang > > -----Original Message----- > From: R-devel [mailto:r-devel-bounces at r-project.org] On Behalf Of Arie ten Cate > Sent: Sunday, 08 October, 2017 14:55 > To: r-devel at r-project.org > Subject: [Rd] Discourage the weights= option of lm with summarized data > > Indeed: Using 'weights' is not meant to indicate that the same > observation is repeated 'n' times. As I showed, this gives erroneous > results. Hence I suggested that it is discouraged rather than > encouraged in t...

...ng to make. >> >> Best, >> Wolfgang >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: R-devel [mailto:r-devel-bounces at r-project.org] On Behalf Of Arie ten Cate >> Sent: Sunday, 08 October, 2017 14:55 >> To: r-devel at r-project.org >> Subject: [Rd] Discourage the weights= option of lm with summarized data >> >> Indeed: Using 'weights' is not meant to indicate that the same >> observation is repeated 'n' times. As I showed, this gives erroneous >> results. Hence I suggested that it is discouraged rather than &gt...

In the Details section of lm (linear models) in the Reference manual, it is suggested to use the weights= option for summarized data. This must be discouraged rather than encouraged. The motivation for this is as follows. With summarized data the standard errors get smaller with increasing numbers of observations. However, the standard errors in lm do not get smaller when for instance all weights are multiplied with the same constant larger than one,...

i started on the nt domains for unix project on the basis of paul ashton's enthusiastic and "this can't be too hard" attitude, back in august 97. since then, with the encouragement of a number of people over the last three years, and with the discouragement of others, the nt domains protocols are now pretty well understood. due to that constant discouragement, i no longer find it as enjoyable to work on samba as i did. the enjoyment from discovering new ground is no longer offset by the constant dismissal of the ideas and solutions that i come...

...lfgang >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: R-devel [mailto:r-devel-bounces at r-project.org] On Behalf Of Arie ten Cate >>>> Sent: Sunday, 08 October, 2017 14:55 >>>> To: r-devel at r-project.org >>>> Subject: [Rd] Discourage the weights= option of lm with summarized data >>>> >>>> Indeed: Using 'weights' is not meant to indicate that the same >>>> observation is repeated 'n' times. As I showed, this gives erroneous >>>> results. Hence I suggested that i...

...s - I'll try this tonight. >>>> >>>> Assuming it works, should these variables be added to the docs at >>>> http://llvm.org/docs/CMake.html ? >>> >>> Yes. >> >> It probably makes sense to add LLVM_BUILD_LLVM_DYLIB, but I would discourage adding BUILD_SHARED_LIBS to that document. BUILD_SHARED_LIBS is rarely what people actually want, and a lot of people gravitate to it because the wording is similar to the autoconf —enable-shared flag. > > Considering that BUILD_SHARED_LIBS is rarely what people want, wouldn’t it make sense...

...olfgang >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: R-devel [mailto:r-devel-bounces at r-project.org] On Behalf Of Arie ten Cate >>>> Sent: Sunday, 08 October, 2017 14:55 >>>> To: r-devel at r-project.org >>>> Subject: [Rd] Discourage the weights= option of lm with summarized data >>>> >>>> Indeed: Using 'weights' is not meant to indicate that the same >>>> observation is repeated 'n' times. As I showed, this gives erroneous >>>> results. Hence I suggested that it...

> I was under the impression that in-source-tree builds were an unsupported > configuration. It's certainly strongly discouraged. I'm not fond of the > idea of making it easier, especially when there's a maintenance cost to > doing so. > Strongly discouraged, and yes, this. -eric -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/a...

...f production > Samba sites? > > Do you have the resources to ensure that if GnuTLS issues a security > advisory impacting GnuTLS 3.4 that you backport the patches? I notice > a number of issues here: https://www.gnutls.org/security-new.html > > Or should we instead strongly discourage the use of Samba 4.12, > particularly as an AD DC (because the LDAP server exposes TLS, which > seems to be a more likely target), on RHEL7 / CentOS 7? > > (We would instead suggest that an upgrade to RHEL8 / CentOS 8 instead). You should upgrade to RHEL8 or CentOS8 which offers a mo...

...age being used significant number of production Samba sites? Do you have the resources to ensure that if GnuTLS issues a security advisory impacting GnuTLS 3.4 that you backport the patches? I notice a number of issues here: https://www.gnutls.org/security-new.html Or should we instead strongly discourage the use of Samba 4.12, particularly as an AD DC (because the LDAP server exposes TLS, which seems to be a more likely target), on RHEL7 / CentOS 7? (We would instead suggest that an upgrade to RHEL8 / CentOS 8 instead). Thanks! Andrew Bartlett -- Andrew Bartlett https://...

...gt; Best, >>> Wolfgang >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: R-devel [mailto:r-devel-bounces at r-project.org] On Behalf Of Arie ten Cate >>> Sent: Sunday, 08 October, 2017 14:55 >>> To: r-devel at r-project.org >>> Subject: [Rd] Discourage the weights= option of lm with summarized data >>> >>> Indeed: Using 'weights' is not meant to indicate that the same >>> observation is repeated 'n' times. As I showed, this gives erroneous >>> results. Hence I suggested that it is discouraged...

On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Eli Bendersky <eliben at google.com> wrote: > This is unfortunate. Last month I tweaked TestingGuide.rst to > discourage grep in favor of FileCheck. It now says: > > "The recommended way to examine output to figure out if the test > passes it using the FileCheck tool. The usage of grep in RUN lines is > discouraged." > > However, perhaps it's time to remove any mention of grep from th...

...error. >> >> I think that within a month this knowledge will be propagated to all developers. > > I'd like to think so, too, but we still get patches that write tests using 'grep' instead of FileCheck. > This is unfortunate. Last month I tweaked TestingGuide.rst to discourage grep in favor of FileCheck. It now says: "The recommended way to examine output to figure out if the test passes it using the FileCheck tool. The usage of grep in RUN lines is discouraged." However, perhaps it's time to remove any mention of grep from that document? Eli

FWIW from https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/SubmittingPatches After you have submitted your change, be patient and wait. If Linus likes your change and applies it, it will appear in the next version of the kernel that he releases. However, if your change doesn't appear in the next version of the kernel, there could be any number of reasons. It's YOUR job to narrow down those