search for: hoewev

...ch.fun(FUN) : 'pFun(x)' is not a function, character or symbol Question 1: What is the issue here?? Now, to the real problem. I wrote a function to cmDownFun(sDate)which is working correctly If I do cmDownFun (x[6]) .. it works correctly .. (i.e. my function was ok this time around!) Hoewever if I do, lapply (x,cmDownFun(x)) It fails at 01-Jan-2010 .... this is because of: HTTP status was '404 Not Found' This is OK, because the file does not exist ... but I want to continue for the remaining values of x lapply(x,try(cmDownFun(x),silent = TRUE)) .. does not work I also put the...

...num=rnorm(4)) dfdf <-cbind(df[seq(from=1,by=2,along.with=df),],df[seq(from=2,by=2,along.with=df),]) names(dfdf) <- c("cat","num","cat2","num2") ggplot(df, aes(x=cat, y=num)) + geom_point() + geom_segment(aes(x=cat,xend=cat2,y=num,yend=num2),data=dfdf) Hoewever, in a more extended example (where df is more complex and also contains factors used for grouping and faceting) this becomes a bit cumbersome. Is there a better way to do this? /Fredrik -- "Life is like a trumpet - if you don't put anything into it, you don't get anything out of i...

...;Interaction Plot") My problem is that I cant find a proper argument to pass factor names to the variables 'group' and 'city'. In the interaction plot now the groups are referred to as '1', '2' and '3' and the citys are referred to '1', 2'. Hoewever, Id like to pass string character names to those ('Therapy 1, 'therapy 2 and therapy 3). I'd also like to pass string character names to the varibale 'city' ('Amsterdam', "Rotterdam', etc.) I'm a quite new user (since two weeks), and normally I can easi...

...experience/social capital are best equipped to make decisions. Not only is that not always true, it leads to an organization with structural barriers to newcomers, those with different/less common backgrounds and dissenting views. I definitely do not want to go for "meritocracy." > Hoewever, I'd strongly advise against a simple voting system. Agreed! > We also need to be scalable. If we have a decision that only affects a > small part of the code, we can handle in the sub-community (like we > currently do RFCs), but if some points may affect a wider range (like > s...

Hi Everyone, Numerous people have been bringing up challenges with consensus driven decision making in the LLVM community. After considering this and seeing the frustrations it is causing many people, I think we should make a formal process change to help improve decision making going forward. Here is the outline of the draft proposal