search for: nonexported

...or outputs and character(0) for list outputs and nomatch = NA results in insertion of NA_character_, and nomatch = '' results in insertion of empty string. I can submit proposed patch code if others think this is a good idea. What are your thoughts on the proposed alteration to (currently nonexported) strextract? I assume (maybe wrongly) that the plan is to eventually export that function. Thank you, CG

You need to learn how to access code for nonexported methods. See ? "::" > methods(qda) [1] qda.data.frame* qda.default* qda.formula* qda.matrix* see '?methods' for accessing help and source code Shows you that the methods are not exported from the namespace. Hence you need to use the triple colon operator to see their c...

Hello, I am Souradeep Chattopadhyay and I am a graduate student at Iowa State University Department of Statistics. Can anyone please explain the mathematical formulation behind the scaling matrix returned by the qda function in MASS package. I want to understand how this scaling matrix is derived from the inputs given to the qda function. Example Code The following example is using

...urse but to muck through source code. Btw, I think the following will give the necessary source code: MASS:::qda.default Hope this helps! Best wishes, Ranjan On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 15:58:30 -0700 Bert Gunter <bgunter.4567 at gmail.com> wrote: > You need to learn how to access code for nonexported methods. See ? "::" > > > methods(qda) > [1] qda.data.frame* qda.default* qda.formula* qda.matrix* > see '?methods' for accessing help and source code > > Shows you that the methods are not exported from the namespace. Hence > you need to use the t...

...ist > outputs and nomatch = NA results in insertion of NA_character_, and nomatch > = '' results in insertion of empty string. > > I can submit proposed patch code if others think this is a good idea. > > What are your thoughts on the proposed alteration to (currently > nonexported) strextract? I assume (maybe wrongly) that the plan is to > eventually export that function. > > Thank you, > CG > [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

Dear Sir or Madam, I am in 2nd year of my PhD in bioinformatics, after taking my Master?s in computer science, and have been using R heavily during my PhD. As such, I have put together a list of certain features in R that, in my opinion, would be beneficial to add, or could be improved. The first two are already implemented in packages, but given that it is implemented as user-defined operators,

...atch = NA results in insertion of NA_character_, and nomatch >> = '' results in insertion of empty string. >> >> I can submit proposed patch code if others think this is a good idea. >> >> What are your thoughts on the proposed alteration to (currently >> nonexported) strextract? I assume (maybe wrongly) that the plan is to >> eventually export that function. >> >> Thank you, >> CG >> > [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

A very common use case for regmatches is to extract regex matches into a new column in a data.frame (or data.table, etc.) or otherwise use the extracted strings alongside the input. However, the default behavior is to drop empty matches, which results in mismatches in column length if reassignment is done without subsetting. For consistency with other R functions and compatibility with this use

Regarding the anonymous-function-in-a-pipeline point one can already do this which does use brackets but even so it involves fewer characters than the example shown. Here { . * 2 } is basically a lambda whose argument is dot. Would this be sufficient? library(magrittr) 1.5 %>% { . * 2 } ## [1] 3 Regarding currying note that with magrittr Ista's code could be written as: 1:5

Thanks for the answers, I?m aware of the ?.? option, just wanted to give a very simple example. But the lapply ??' parameter use has eluded me and thanks for enlightening me. What do you mean by messing up the call stack. As far as I understand it, piping should translate into same code as deep nesting. So then I only see a tiny downside for debugging here. No loss of time/space efficiency

On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 8:08 AM, Antonin Klima <antonink at idi.ntnu.no> wrote: > Thanks for the answers, > > I?m aware of the ?.? option, just wanted to give a very simple example. > > But the lapply ??' parameter use has eluded me and thanks for enlightening me. > > What do you mean by messing up the call stack. As far as I understand it, piping should translate