search for: reformulated

Hi, i'm trying to simplify some R code but i got stucked in this: test<-data.frame(cbind(id,x1,x2,x3,x4,x5,x6,x7)) test > test id x1 x2 x3 x4 x5 x6 x7 1 1 36 26 21 32 31 27 31 2 2 45 21 46 50 22 36 29 3 3 49 47 35 44 33 31 46 4 4 42 32 38 28 39 45 32 5 5 29 42 39 48 25 35 34 6 6 39 31 30 37 46 43 44 7 7 41 40 25 23 42 40 24 8 8 27 29 47 34 26 38 28 9 9 25 35 29 36

Proposed patch (I think .txt files work OK as attachments to the list?) On 2019-04-04 2:21 a.m., Martin Maechler wrote: >>>>>> Ben Bolker >>>>>> on Fri, 29 Mar 2019 12:34:50 -0400 writes: > > > I suspect that the issue is addressed (obliquely) in the examples, > > which shows that variables with spaces in them (or otherwise >

I suspect that the issue is addressed (obliquely) in the examples, which shows that variables with spaces in them (or otherwise 'non-syntactic', i.e. not satisfying the constraints of legal R symbols) can be handled by protecting them with backticks (``) ## using non-syntactic names: reformulate(c("`P/E`", "`% Growth`"), response = as.name("+-")) It

>>>>> Ben Bolker >>>>> on Thu, 4 Apr 2019 12:46:37 -0400 writes: > Proposed patch Thank you Ben! [the rest is technical nit-picking .. but hopefully interesting to the smart R-devel reader base:] There was a very subtle thinko in your patch which is not easily diagnosed from R's parse_Rd(): Error in

>>>>> Ben Bolker >>>>> on Fri, 29 Mar 2019 12:34:50 -0400 writes: > I suspect that the issue is addressed (obliquely) in the examples, > which shows that variables with spaces in them (or otherwise > 'non-syntactic', i.e. not satisfying the constraints of legal R symbols) > can be handled by protecting them with backticks

Hi, Sorry for writing this late, I was very busy. I started this discussion here. I wish I could write to bugs.r-project.org, but I don't have an account and I will write here instead. Meanwhile, I solved my problem with a simpler fix (please see attached file)/. / This requires that term labels are not "ticked". I think this is better, since it is easier to have column names

Your file didn't make it through the mailing list (which is quite restrictive about which types/extensions it will take). I appreciate your enthusiasm and persistence for this issue, but I suspect you may have trouble convincing R-core to adopt your changes -- they are "better", "easier", "more intuitive" for you ... but how sure are you they are completely

Greetings, I am having trouble getting the function reformulate_ATSP_as_TSP to work for me. I have provided a simple example of some of the code I've been using. In particular, I'm not sure why I'm getting the error "Error in dimnames(tsp) <- list(lab, lab) : length of 'dimnames' [1] not equal to array extent" since I created the object ATSP with a valid

Well, first I can't sign in bugzilla myself, that is why I wrote here first. Also, I don't know if I have the time at the moment to provide tests, multiple examples or more. If that is not ok or welcomed, that is fine, I can come back, whenever I have more time to properly report the bug. I didn't find the existing bug report, sorry for that. Yes, it is related. My problem was

So here is it as txt file. It is funny that a R file is restricted in R-devel mailing list. Anyhow, in this case R-core have a few choices here: * ignore my solution * show that it is actually bad or worse * consider adding it Considering, that it is a minor change from previous version and doesn't bother the existing usage, I saw the necessity to submit it here. But newer solution

Hi, I have found a bug in reformulate function and have a solution for it. I was wondering, where I can submit it? Best, Saren -- Saren Tasciyan /PhD Student / Sixt Group/ Institute of Science and Technology Austria Am Campus 1 3400 Klosterneuburg, Austria

>>>>> Saren Tasciyan >>>>> on Thu, 28 Mar 2019 17:02:10 +0100 writes: > Hi, > I have found a bug in reformulate function and have a solution for it. I > was wondering, where I can submit it? > Best, > Saren Well, you could have given a small reproducible example depicting the bug, notably when posting here: Just a prose

The main thing is to post the "small reproducible example". My (rather long term experience) can be written if (exists("reproducible example") ) { DeveloperFixHappens() } else { NULL } JN On 2019-03-29 11:38 a.m., Saren Tasciyan wrote: > Well, first I can't sign in bugzilla myself, that is why I wrote here first. Also, I don't know if I have the

First I wanted to thank both Marc Schwartz Greg Snow and for their reply. Then I needed to add a level of complexity to the problem. I would be able to create the biggest possible matrix. In other way does it exist a method to ask smthing like the following : max number of rows for a matrix if column=x? Thank you ------------------------------------------------------ Passa a Infostrada.

...s smart as" SCEV in most cases. > > — Sanjoy SCEV is super useful as an analysis without SCEVExpander. The only real issue with SCEV itself is invalidating the expressions. I’ve always thought SCEVExpander is very dangerous to use directly. Ideally the SCEV expression should always be reformulated based on existing IR values before expanding. It would be nice if that was provided as a layer of functionality on top of SCEVExpander. -Andy

Martin, ? There are a couple of issues with [.terms that have bitten my survival code.? At the useR conference I promised you a detailed (readable) explanation, and have been lax in getting it to you. The error was first pointed out in a bugzilla note from 2016, by the way.? The current survival code works around these. Consider the following formula: <<testform>>=

Hey! Our flac's official website is looking so old, isn't it? Let's reformulate it. I wanna do this, anyone else? Regards, Lucas Correia -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/flac-dev/attachments/20091118/cabc7c52/attachment.htm

Has anyone had success using Sun ONE as an LDAP (authentication) back-end to Samba (preferably 4.0, but 3.3 would be fine)? I've found people who've tried and given up. Sun itself hasn't provided answers, but I haven't given up on them; I'll keep reformulating my questions, and asking again. One speculation on my part is that, if I can just figure out where in Sun ONE the

Dear all, As our previous email did not get any response, we try again with a reformulated question! We are trying to do something which needs an efficient loop over a huge array, possibly functions such as apply and related (tapply, lapply...?), but can't really understand syntax and examples in practice...i.e. cant' make it work. to be more specific: we are trying to apply...

...the > work for hardware loop generation. I have thought about it, but I > won't be able to do anything in the short term. > > -Krzysztof > I think a first and useful step would be to let targets optionally have the loop induction variable which controls the back-branching be reformulated as a decrement towards zero with a -1 step. Should this be an extension of LSR, or should it be a simple beginning of a HW-loop pass running after it? /Jonas