search for: do_c

...; From comments in >> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/24815572/why-does-function-c-accept-an-undocumented-argument/24815653 >> : The code of c() and unlist() was formerly shared but >> has been (long time passing) separated. From July 30, >> 1998, is where do_c got split into do_c and do_unlist. > With the implementation of 'c.Date' in R devel r71350, an > argument named 'use.names' is included for > concatenation. So, it doesn't follow the documented > 'c'. But, 'c.Date' is not explicitly do...

...in >>> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/24815572/why-does-function-c-accept-an-undocumented-argument/24815653 >>> : The code of c() and unlist() was formerly shared but >>> has been (long time passing) separated. From July 30, >>> 1998, is where do_c got split into do_c and do_unlist. >> With the implementation of 'c.Date' in R devel r71350, an >> argument named 'use.names' is included for >> concatenation. So, it doesn't follow the documented >> 'c'. But, 'c.Date' is n...

Reading the body of function 'AnswerType' in bind.c, called from 'do_c' and 'do_unlist', I notice that EXPRSXP and VECSXP are handled identically in the recurse = TRUE case. A corollary is that c(recursive = TRUE) and unlist(recursive = TRUE) treat expression vectors like expression(a, b) as lists of symbols and calls. And since they treat symbols...

>From comments in http://stackoverflow.com/questions/24815572/why-does-function-c-accept-an-undocumented-argument/24815653 : The code of c() and unlist() was formerly shared but has been (long time passing) separated. From July 30, 1998, is where do_c got split into do_c and do_unlist. With the implementation of 'c.Date' in R devel r71350, an argument named 'use.names' is included for concatenation. So, it doesn't follow the documented 'c'. But, 'c.Date' is not explicitly documented in Dates.Rd, that has '...

...ignificant aspects of the code, including for "..." methods, which seem to do roughly what was intended. Yes, I'm sorry if I sounded like saying something different. That I think this [getting c() to work for a collection objects, some S4] needs changes in R is because it seems that do_c() fails to dispatch here, and hence the problem was with our C function that has carried the comment | * To call this an ugly hack would be to insult all existing ugly hacks | * at large in the world. and I don't think I would be able to correctly patch that infamous function (in src/mai...

...a4 in Rf_evalList (el=0xa21c50, rho=0x4bb078) at eval.c:1087 #16 0x5a244 in Rf_eval (e=0xa21c34, rho=0x4bb078) at eval.c:338 #17 0x5c58c in Rf_DispatchOrEval (call=0xa21ba8, generic=0x10cca0 "c", args=0xa21bc4, rho=0x4bb078, ans=0xefffc3c4, dropmissing=1) at eval.c:1386 #18 0x2f144 in do_c (call=0xa21ba8, op=0x1c8168, args=0xa21bc4, env=0x4bb078) at bind.c:538 #19 0x5a114 in Rf_eval (e=0xa21ba8, rho=0x4bb078) at eval.c:317 #20 0x5b300 in do_begin (call=0xa21b8c, op=0x1c6294, args=0xa21b70, rho=0x4bb078) at eval.c:803 #21 0x5a114 in Rf_eval (e=0xa21b8c, rho=0x4bb078) at eval.c...

I have been asked (by Roger; thank you for the good question, and I hope it's fine to answer to the public) : > with Pi a sparse matrix and x,y, and ones > compatible n-vectors ? when I do: >> c(t(x) %*% Pi %*% ones, t(ones) %*% Pi %*% y ) > [[1]] 1 x 1 Matrix of class "dgeMatrix" > [,1] [1,] > 0.1338527 >

If anyone has a few extra CPU cycles to spare, I'd appreciate it if you could verify a problem that I have encountered. Run the code below and tell me if it crashes your R before completion. library(lme4) data(bdf) dump<-sapply( 1:50000, function(i) { fm <- lme(langPOST ~ IQ.ver.cen + avg.IQ.ver.cen, data = bdf, random = ~ IQ.ver.cen | schoolNR); cat("