search for: disfavor

On 08/02/15 14:24, Pete Geenhuizen wrote: > > On 02/08/15 07:45, Ned Slider wrote: >> >> On 08/02/15 12:33, Pete Geenhuizen wrote: >> No, you don't have the package kmod-nvidia-340xx installed. You have >> kmod-nvidia VERSION 340.65. In the first example, the package NAME is >> kmod-nvidia-340xx (the -340xx is part of the package name, NOT the >>

On Jan 31, 2019, at 11:12 AM, mark <m.roth at 5-cent.us> wrote: > > Why would *ANYONE* think that everyone should just start from scratch, > taking all the time in the world to get it converted? If the conversion were simple enough to be easily automated, the new system is probably no more than just a syntactic difference away from the old, and thus does not provide any

...ir own table, classify based on source realm, and use the tc "mirred" action to redirect packets that source from addresses routed back to by that table onto a different egress interface. It seems obvious this can be done, that the old "iptables -j ROUTE" method is falling into disfavor and lack of maintenence, and that the tc "mirred" action is stepping up to take its place. However this has raised numerous questions, most of which just because this is my first wade into the LARTC pool. Also, though, I am having trouble finding any docs that factor in actions, since th...

...rse.org/ for more details. > I would be happy to prepare code and documentation. If there is no time now, we can return to it after R-4.4 is released. I strongly recommend to not rush this. This is an important, big problem that goes beyond the 'parallel' package. I think it would be a disfavor to introduce a '.progress' argument. As mentioned above, I think a solution should work throughout the R ecosystem - all base-R packages and beyond. I honestly think we could arrive at a solution where base-R proposes a very light, yet powerful, progress API that handles all of the above. T...

...on groups, > for example, and assumes very c-like rules in several places around the > sequencing of access types. > Also note that in the language of access paths, C allows overlapping that > does not exist in, for example, Java > > > Is this a statement generally favoring or disfavoring having the frontend > encode the path explicitly? > > (This is true in both the points-to and type-based domains). > Ada has discriminated unions (and you could not use the "union" in this > proposal to represent them) > > > Yes, but discriminated unions also ha...

<just want to focus on these parts for a second. *All* of these representations are really access path representations, just encoded slightly different ways, and, as a result, with various parts of the rules in slightly different places> Imagine that we took the enhancement we previously discussed, but instead > of implementing it directly, we just directly encoded for every access the

Hello R-devel, A function to be run inside lapply() or one of its friends is trivial to augment with side effects to show a progress bar. When the code is intended to be run on a 'parallel' cluster, it generally cannot rely on its own side effects to report progress. I've found three approaches to progress bars for parallel processes on CRAN: - Importing 'snow' (not

I don’t know what you meant to imply by “residual clause” — if you meant “it’s not particularly important”, then I suggest it is left out entirely. Apparently at least a few of us have interpreted it to say “the committee reserves the right to kick you out for any behaviour that violates our standards which you exhibit anywhere, even if it is completely unrelated to the llvm community”.

That's just a residual clause. It's not sanely possible to enumerate all the possibilities here (IE if you stalk and murder someone in the llvm community, you are going to get kicked out of the community, regardless of if you did it in a controlled space) I mean, i'm subject to legal ethics rules that are very similar, and those could get me kicked out of an entire profession :) I