search for: discouraged

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 t...

...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 28,...

...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 message...

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 is...

...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)...

...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 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 is...

...t 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 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...

...gt; 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 in the Reference manual. >> >> Arie >> >> ---Original Message----- >> On Sat, 7 Oct 2017, wolfgang.viechtbauer at maastrichtuniversity.nl wrote: >> >> Using 'weights' is not meant to...

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, si...

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

...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 in the Reference manual. >>>> >>>> Arie >>>> >>>> ---Original Message----- >>>> On Sat, 7 Oct 2017, wolfgang.viechtbauer at maastrichtuniversity.nl wrote: >>>...

> On Jan 14, 2016, at 11:22 AM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > >> >> On Jan 14, 2016, at 9:38 AM, Chris Bieneman via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> >>> On Jan 14, 2016, at 5:18 AM, Dan Liew <dan at su-root.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>> On 14 January 2016 at 11:24, David Jones via llvm-dev

...e 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 in the Reference manual. >>>> >>>> Arie >>>> >>>> ---Original Message----- >>>> On Sat, 7 Oct 2017, wolfgang.viechtbauer at maastrichtuniversity.nl wrote: >>>&...

> 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/att...

On Thursday, 18 June 2020 06:11:18 CEST Andrew Bartlett via samba-technical wrote: > On Thu, 2020-06-18 at 04:46 +0100, S?rgio Basto via samba wrote: > > On Thu, 2020-06-18 at 14:43 +1200, Andrew Bartlett via samba wrote: > > > If we could get an even more modern version then we can consider > > > removing even more duplicate in-house cryptography. > > > >

On Thu, 2020-06-18 at 04:46 +0100, S?rgio Basto via samba wrote: > On Thu, 2020-06-18 at 14:43 +1200, Andrew Bartlett via samba wrote: > > If we could get an even more modern version then we can consider > > removing even more duplicate in-house cryptography. > > Thank you , glad to help . > > You mean do compat-gnutls36 packages ? IIRC, already when I tried to >

...d] 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 in the Reference manual. >>> >>> Arie >>> >>> ---Original Message----- >>> On Sat, 7 Oct 2017, wolfgang.viechtbauer at maastrichtuniversity.nl wrote: >>> >>> Using '...

....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 that document? One contributing factor to the continued use of grep may be that the section "Writing New Regression Tests" [1] mentions grep multiple times, and FileCheck 0 times. Besides that, I suspect...

...g '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