search for: nomatches

Hello, It's several days I try to track this bug, and even cannot cook a reproducible example. Yet, it occurs consistently in a long-running task after a variable period of time. Here is an example: ... my long-running code [as I said, cannot give something simple that produces this bug in a reproducible manner] Error in match(x, table, nomatch = 0L) : formal argument

When I run R CMD check R.oo on R v2.7.0 devel (2008-03-04 r44677) on WinXP I get the following error while testing examples: Error in match(x, table, nomatch = 0) : formal argument "nomatch" matched by multiple actual arguments Calls: setMethodS3 -> setMethodS3.default -> %in% -> match Execution halted How is that even possible with: > get("%in%") function (x,

I do think keeping the default behavior is desirable for backwards compatibility; my suggestion is not to change default behavior but to add an optional argument that allows a different behavior. Although this can be implemented in a user-defined function, retaining empty matches facilitates programmatic use, and seems to be something that should be available in base R. It is available, for

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi Bryant, Thanks for your reply. It didn't work immediately, I had to create a second context, or else it was looping between the second and first line. This seems to work: [earlydial] ; Test Early Dial exten => _.,1,Set(l_Extension=${EXTEN}) exten => _.,n,Goto(earlydial2,${l_Extension},1) [earlydial2] exten => _.,n,Goto(noMatch,1)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Le 18/02/2016 11:03, Richard Mudgett a ?crit : > I've been using Grandstream phones for more than 10 years, but onl y > yesterday tried to use Early Dial... and I failed. What is needed on the > Asterisk side to reply 484 to INVITE? Phones are talking to chan_p jsip > on Asterisk-13.7.1. > > > Look into the

Looking at the code of function 'table' in R devel r71227, I see that the part "remove NA level if it was added only for excluded in factor(a, exclude=.)" is not quite right. In is.na(a) <- match(a0, c(exclude,NA), nomatch=0L) , I think that what is intended is a[a0 %in% c(exclude,NA)] <- NA . So, it should be is.na(a) <- match(a0, c(exclude,NA),

I don't care much for regmatches and haven't tried strextract, but I think replacing the character(0) by NA_character_ is almost always inappropriate if the match information comes from gregexpr. I think strcapture() does a pretty good job of what I think you are trying to do. Perhaps adding an argument to map no match to NA instead of "" would give you just what you wanted.

Hi, Is there a command to get the indices of intersecting elements of two vectors as intersect() will give the elements and not its indices. Thanks in advance. Praveen Surendran School of Medicine and Medical Sciences University College Dublin Belfield, Dublin 4 Ireland. [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

Sometimes I write code like this: > qf.a <- subset(qf, pubid %in% c(104, 106, 107, 108)) > qf.b <- subset(qf, !pubid %in% c(104, 106, 107, 108)) and I get a little worried that maybe I've remembered the precedence rules wrong, so I change it to > qf.a <- subset(qf, pubid %in% c(104, 106, 107, 108)) > qf.b <- subset(qf, !(pubid %in% c(104, 106, 107, 108))) and pretty

hello, I need help because I don't understand the syntaxe "else" how can I write it for example I writed a script to cut missings values and I have errors > if(na==length(C)){ + pos=match(0,match(donGeno[[na-1]],donGeno[[na]],nomatch=0)) + for(k in 1:(na-1)) { + if(pos==1) {donGeno[[k]] <-

Suppose we have `dat` shown below and we want to find the the `y` value corresponding to the last value in `x` equal to the corresponding component of `seek` and we wish to return an output the same length as `seek` using `findInterval` to perform the search. This returns the correct result: dat <- data.frame(x = c(2, 2, 3, 4, 4, 4), y = c(37, 12, 19, 30, 6, 15), seek = 1:6)

Hi, Summary: I ran into some unexpected behavior in approx() and tapply() that introduced NA's in "clean" data due to (?) numerical accuracy/round off. The culprit seems to be in match() that coerces it's arguments to character, loosing precision in the process. [R development version 1.2.0, 08 Nov 2000, on Linux] Example: > r > [1] 0.6931472 0.6931472 0.6931472

Hi, Summary: I ran into some unexpected behavior in approx() and tapply() that introduced NA's in "clean" data due to (?) numerical accuracy/round off. The culprit seems to be in match() that coerces it's arguments to character, loosing precision in the process. [R development version 1.2.0, 08 Nov 2000, on Linux] Example: > r > [1] 0.6931472 0.6931472 0.6931472

I came across the below mis-feature/bug using match with POSIXlt objects (from strptime) in R 2.11.1 (though this appears to be an old issue). > x <- as.POSIXlt(Sys.Date()) > table <- as.POSIXlt(Sys.Date()+0:5) > length(x) [1] 1 > x %in% table # I expect TRUE [1] FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE > match(x, table) # I expect 1 [1] NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Here are a couple of problems with the use of eval.parent(substitute(expr)) instead of just lazily evaluating expr in the .doTrace function used by trace. (a) In S+ I sometimes use trace() to see how long a function takes to run with a tracer expression the saves the start time and calls on.exit to report the difference between the start and end times when the trace function ends. E.g., >

hello, I need your help for this example > for(k in LR) { + donGeno[[k]] <- as.numeric(levels(factor(subset(don2, Id_Essai == 1006961 & Id_Cara == LC[1] & Id_Rep == k, select = Id_Geno)[,1]))) + print(donGeno[[k]])} [1] 65125 65126 65127 65128 65129 65130 65131 65132 65133 65134 65135 65136 65137 65138 65139 65140 65141 65142 65143 65144 65171 [1] 65126 65127 65128 65129 65130

My code seems to break out with error below for every 1000 files it processes. Then I re-run from the last file where it errored out and it runs without any bugs. Any ideas what might cause error below? Error in match(x, table, nomatch = 0) : formal argument "nomatch" matched by multiple actual arguments -- View this message in context:

Good morning, the Icecast Project is very pleased to have released the next beta of Icecast, version 2.5 beta3. As this is a beta usage in production should be with caution. Please see the full news entry linked below for details. New features (extract): * Overall * Improved relay configuration including multi-upstream support * Improved directory configuration including updated

Good morning, the Icecast Project is very pleased to have released the next beta of Icecast, version 2.5 beta3. As this is a beta usage in production should be with caution. Please see the full news entry linked below for details. New features (extract): * Overall * Improved relay configuration including multi-upstream support * Improved directory configuration including updated

Using a non-capturing group, "(?:...)" instead of "(...)", simplifies my example a bit > x <- c("Groucho <groucho at marx.com>", "<chico at marx.com>", "Harpo") > strcapture("([[:alpha:]]+)?(?: *<([[:alpha:]. ]+@[[:alpha:]. ]+)>)?", x, proto=data.frame(Name=character(), Address=character(),