search for: hester

#this is my stab at - I am sure that I am missing something. If this doesn't make sense then please ask for more details. #This may show my low level of programing knowledge hester. <- c(1,1,1,1,2,2,2,2,3,3,3,3,4,4,4,4) value <- rnorm(16) x <- data.frame(value, hester.) z <- (if(x[,"hester."]==1){ x[,"value"]*6.250} else if(x[,"hester."]==2){ x[,"value"]*3.125} else if(x[,"hester."]==3){ x[,"value"]*2.10...

This probably has an easy solution, but I found it yet. How can I get out of a remote console after using ssh to get into the box, making changes, reload etc. without stopping *? Thanks in advance. Sincerely, Andy Hester Consero

...hould probably be addressed (eventually) in the >> core language, and it looks like people are already able to experiment, so >> I'm not sure there's a significant impetus for this change. >> >> Michael >> >> >> On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 10:51 AM, Jim Hester <james.f.hester at gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> I used the `function(x)` form to explicitly show the function was >>> being called with only one argument, clearly performance implications >>> are not relevant for these examples. >>> >>>...

...coopting unary @ for that myself. After off list > discussions with Jonathan Carrol and with Michael Lawrence I think it's > doable, unambiguous, and even imo pretty intuitive for an "unquote" > operator. > > Best, > ~G > > On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 5:10 AM, Jim Hester <james.f.hester at gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> I agree there is no reason they _need_ to be the same precedence, but >> I think SPECIALS are already have the proper precedence for both unary >> and binary calls. Namely higher than all the binary operators (except >...

...see the advantage vs. foo(x). Those examples you mention should probably be addressed (eventually) in the core language, and it looks like people are already able to experiment, so I'm not sure there's a significant impetus for this change. Michael On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 10:51 AM, Jim Hester <james.f.hester at gmail.com> wrote: > I used the `function(x)` form to explicitly show the function was > being called with only one argument, clearly performance implications > are not relevant for these examples. > > I think of this mainly as a gap in the tooling we provide...

...t; %identical% %chr% 100 > > would work and return TRUE under your patch? > > And with %num% <- as.numeric, then > > 1 + - %num% "5" > > would also be legal (though quite ugly imo) and work? > > Best, > ~G > > On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 7:24 AM, Jim Hester <james.f.hester at gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> R has long supported user defined binary (infix) functions, defined >> with `%fun%`. A one line change [1] to R's grammar allows users to >> define unary (prefix) functions in the same manner. >> >> `%...

...for the above case (e.g., something like the .() that DBI uses), but that's probably off topic here, and not a decision I'm directly related to anyway. Best, ~G On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 9:51 AM, Martin Maechler <maechler at stat.math.ethz.ch > wrote: > >>>>> Jim Hester <james.f.hester at gmail.com> > >>>>> on Thu, 16 Mar 2017 12:31:56 -0400 writes: > > > Gabe, > > The unary functions have the same precedence as normal SPECIALS > > (although the new unary forms take precedence over binary SPECIALS). >...

...coopting unary @ for that myself. After off list > discussions with Jonathan Carrol and with Michael Lawrence I think it's > doable, unambiguous, and even imo pretty intuitive for an "unquote" > operator. > > Best, > ~G > > On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 5:10 AM, Jim Hester <james.f.hester at gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> I agree there is no reason they _need_ to be the same precedence, but >> I think SPECIALS are already have the proper precedence for both unary >> and binary calls. Namely higher than all the binary operators (except >...

Are there technical reasons that package names cannot be snake case? This seems to be enforced by `.standard_regexps()$valid_package_name` which currently returns "[[:alpha:]][[:alnum:].]*[[:alnum:]]" Is there any technical reason this couldn't be altered to accept `_` as well, e.g. "[[:alpha:]][[:alnum:]._]*[[:alnum:]]" I realize that historically `_` has not

...(it isn't to me). I'd propose coopting unary @ for that myself. After off list discussions with Jonathan Carrol and with Michael Lawrence I think it's doable, unambiguous, and even imo pretty intuitive for an "unquote" operator. Best, ~G On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 5:10 AM, Jim Hester <james.f.hester at gmail.com> wrote: > I agree there is no reason they _need_ to be the same precedence, but > I think SPECIALS are already have the proper precedence for both unary > and binary calls. Namely higher than all the binary operators (except > for `:`), but lower than...

...ons with Jonathan Carrol and with Michael Lawrence I think it's >> > doable, unambiguous, and even imo pretty intuitive for an "unquote" >> > operator. >> > >> > Best, >> > ~G >> > >> > On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 5:10 AM, Jim Hester <james.f.hester at gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> I agree there is no reason they _need_ to be the same precedence, but >> >> I think SPECIALS are already have the proper precedence for both unary >> >> and binary calls. Namely high...

I am following the example at http://www.voip-info.org/wiki/view/Asterisk+tips+findme but I find that no matter what, the call is connected. Can anyone confirm that config is working for them? Any suggestions appreciated. I need to transfer calls to a list of cell phones, ring all of them, allow them to screen the call, connect the call to the first number that accepts the call, and allow

...on Windows. If I set it to English using Sys.setlocale() there is no problem, then back to Chinese and the authors disappear: Sys.setlocale("LC_ALL","English") citation("readr") #' To cite package ?readr? in publications use: #' #' Hadley Wickham, Jim Hester and Romain Francois (2017). readr: Read #' Rectangular Text Data. R package version 1.1.1. #' https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=readr #' #' A BibTeX entry for LaTeX users is #' #' @Manual{, #' title = {readr: Read Rectangular Text Data}, #' author = {Hadley Wick...

...Those examples you mention should probably be addressed (eventually) in the > core language, and it looks like people are already able to experiment, so > I'm not sure there's a significant impetus for this change. > > Michael > > > On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 10:51 AM, Jim Hester <james.f.hester at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> I used the `function(x)` form to explicitly show the function was >> being called with only one argument, clearly performance implications >> are not relevant for these examples. >> >> I think of this mainly as a...

...off list > > discussions with Jonathan Carrol and with Michael Lawrence I think it's > > doable, unambiguous, and even imo pretty intuitive for an "unquote" > > operator. > > > > Best, > > ~G > > > > On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 5:10 AM, Jim Hester <james.f.hester at gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> > >> I agree there is no reason they _need_ to be the same precedence, but > >> I think SPECIALS are already have the proper precedence for both unary > >> and binary calls. Namely higher than all the bina...

>>>>> Jim Hester <james.f.hester at gmail.com> >>>>> on Thu, 16 Mar 2017 12:31:56 -0400 writes: > Gabe, > The unary functions have the same precedence as normal SPECIALS > (although the new unary forms take precedence over binary SPECIALS). > So they are lower p...

.... I'd also like to disallow uppercase letters in package names. > For instance, the cuteness of using a capital "R" in package names is > outweighed by the annoyance of trying to remember which packages use an > upper-case letter. > > On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 9:32 AM Jim Hester <james.f.hester at gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Are there technical reasons that package names cannot be snake case? > > This seems to be enforced by `.standard_regexps()$valid_package_name` > > which currently returns > > > > "[[:alpha:]][[:alnum:].]*...

...l Lawrence I think > it's > >> > doable, unambiguous, and even imo pretty intuitive for an "unquote" > >> > operator. > >> > > >> > Best, > >> > ~G > >> > > >> > On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 5:10 AM, Jim Hester <james.f.hester at gmail.com > > > >> > wrote: > >> >> > >> >> I agree there is no reason they _need_ to be the same precedence, but > >> >> I think SPECIALS are already have the proper precedence for both > unary > >> &g...

R has long supported user defined binary (infix) functions, defined with `%fun%`. A one line change [1] to R's grammar allows users to define unary (prefix) functions in the same manner. `%chr%` <- function(x) as.character(x) `%identical%` <- function(x, y) identical(x, y) %chr% 100 #> [1] "100" %chr% 100 %identical% "100" #> [1] TRUE

...>> > > Thanks, that makes the problem reproducible. I'll submit it as a bug > report. Maybe someone from Microsoft will fix it. > > Duncan Murdoch > > >> #' To cite package ?readr? in publications use: >> #' >> #' Hadley Wickham, Jim Hester and Romain Francois (2017). readr: Read >> #' Rectangular Text Data. R package version 1.1.1. >> #' https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=readr >> #' >> #' A BibTeX entry for LaTeX users is >> #' >> #' @Manual{, >> #' title = {rea...