search for: mismanaging

Hello, something that has been on my mind for a decade or two has been the examples for lm() and glm(). They encourage poor style because of mismanagement of data frames. Also, having the variables in a data frame means that predict() is more likely to work properly. For lm(), the variables should be put into a data frame. As 2 vectors are assigned first in the general workspace they should be

Is there a (C or R) function to invalidate the relevant parts of SEXP / data that are inaccessible? My problem is in tracking down protection and other memory mismanagement bugs, where I have to rely on luck to invalidate or overwrite data to trigger a detectable error. This makes it hard to track down a bug (it sometimes doesn't occur), or to know that a patch fixes the problem. Thanks,

> _ The gnu-efi git repository is currently partially unavailable. Trying > to retrieve older commits (as the one used in the official release of > Syslinux 6.03 stable) might succeed, but, at this moment, trying to > retrieve the official gnu-efi master head will fail. Update: after several days, the gnu-efi master head is now available again. I do not discard the possibility

FWIW, before all the examples are changed to data frame variants, I think there's fairly good reason to have at least _one_ example that does _not_ place variables in a data frame. The data argument in lm() is optional. And there is more than one way to manage data in a project. I personally don't much like lots of stray variables lurking about, but if those are the only variables out

I have a lot of crashes when I try to use term vectors. Here''s an example, which crashes pretty consistently. This problem seems to be somewhat sensitive to platform... people on other OS''s and ruby versions have reported no error. I have seen this with ferret 0.10.13 and 0.10.14 on debian stable using ruby 1.8.2, but I have observed the same problem on various other systems as

A pragmatic solution could be to create a simple linear regression example with variables in the global environment and then another example with a data.frame. The latter might be somewhat more complex, e.g., with several regressors and/or mixed categorical and numeric covariates to illustrate how regression and analysis of (co-)variance can be combined. I like to use MASS's whiteside

Hello, Just want to tap the collective wisdom of this list as to experiences pertaining to the Handytone HT488 and the Sipura SPA-3000 adapters... Basically I'm looking for a FXO/FXS/LAN ATA and these two seems to be the top of the pick..Any comments and experiences esp. with Asterisk compatibility would be great, before I plonk in the bucks. TIA. /wai-sun

Agree. Or just create the data frame with those variables in it directly ... On 2018-12-13 3:26 p.m., Thomas Yee wrote: > Hello, > > something that has been on my mind for a decade or two has > been the examples for lm() and glm(). They encourage poor style > because of mismanagement of data frames. Also, having the > variables in a data frame means that predict() > is more

Hi On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 8:20 PM, Ady <ady-sf at hotmail.com> wrote: > >> _ The gnu-efi git repository is currently partially unavailable. Trying >> to retrieve older commits (as the one used in the official release of >> Syslinux 6.03 stable) might succeed, but, at this moment, trying to >> retrieve the official gnu-efi master head will fail. While we discuss

I am a newbie trying to get the most current Stable version of FreeBSD running. I have been using CVS to update my system, but things don't work after an update. For example KDE 3.1 (from KDE 3.0) doesn't start using startkde. I am looking for instructions on the best way to Install the lastest version of FreeBSD-Stable and how to Upgrade the system in the future. Thanks.

I would argue examples should encourage good practice. Beginners ought to learn to keep data in data frames and not to overuse attach(). Experts can do otherwise at their own risk, but they have less need of explicit examples. On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 at 14:51, S Ellison <S.Ellison at lgcgroup.com> wrote: > FWIW, before all the examples are changed to data frame variants, I think >

Tru64 patch will not make it into 3.5 (this is final) due to lack of willing people to test. I have given the Tru64/osf1 community almost a month to test it. And *ONE* person came forward to give me verification. And don't give me shit about "I don't have time." The person who tested it was LEAVING his employer with Tru64. He found time. IT IS YOUR GAWD DAMN PLATFORM. IF

I''m fairly new to both Xen and Linux, my boss wants me to try and get Xen working on a new dual core running both Windows and QNX (we need to do some real time processing). Ideally he wants Windows to be a host (although from what I have read this isn''t possible yet?) and QNX as a guest. I''m guessing a Linux Dom0 will be needed and then the others run as guests. Does

Hi One of the two mongrel processes has died in the middle of the night four times in the past 9 days, and I need help debugging this. Each time the symptoms are the same: * Each time I can restart the process via cap -a restart_app. * Before the restart, there is nothing unusual in production.log or mongrel.log. * During the restart, about 100 repetitions of an error message are generated in

Dear Martin, I think that everyone agrees that it?s generally preferable to use the data argument to lm() and I have nothing significant to add to the substance of the discussion, but I think that it?s a mistake not to add to the current examples, for the following reasons: (1) Relegating examples using the data argument to ?see also? doesn?t suggest that using the argument is a best practice.

> The build would be failed and exit if build-gnu-efi.sh is failed, so > we'd better not suppress the output of build-gnu-efi.sh, which is good > for debugging. > > Signed-off-by: Robert Yang <liezhi.yang at windriver.com> > --- > efi/check-gnu-efi.sh | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/efi/check-gnu-efi.sh

On Sat, 15 Dec 2018, frederik at ofb.net wrote: > I agree with Steve and Achim that we should keep some examples with no > data frame. That's Objectively Simpler, whether or not it leads to > clutter in the wrong hands. As Steve points out, we have attach() > which is an excellent language feature - not to mention with(). Just for the record: Personally, I wouldn't recommend

I agree with Steve and Achim that we should keep some examples with no data frame. That's Objectively Simpler, whether or not it leads to clutter in the wrong hands. As Steve points out, we have attach() which is an excellent language feature - not to mention with(). I would go even further and say that the examples that are in lm() now should stay at the top. Because people may be used to

Dear Heinz, ---------------------------------------------- > On Dec 17, 2018, at 10:19 AM, Heinz Tuechler <tuechler at gmx.at> wrote: > > Dear All, > > do you think that use of a data argument is best practice in the example below? No, but it is *normally* or *usually* the best option, in my opinion. Best, John > > regards, > > Heinz > > ###

Thanks for the discussion. I do feel quite strongly that the variables should always be a part of a data frame. Then functions such as summary() and pairs() can operate on them all simultaneously.... regression is only one part of the analysis. And what if there are lots of variables? Have them all scattered about the workspace? One of them could be easily overwritten. The generic predict() will