Displaying 20 results from an estimated 118 matches for "reformulating".
Did you mean:
reformating
2012 Oct 12
7
ifelse reformulation
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
2019 Apr 04
2
Bug in the "reformulate" function in stats package
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
>
2019 Mar 29
2
Bug in the "reformulate" function in stats package
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
2019 Apr 05
0
Bug in the "reformulate" function in stats package
>>>>> 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
2019 Apr 04
0
Bug in the "reformulate" function in stats package
>>>>> 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
2019 Apr 18
3
Bug in the "reformulate" function in stats package
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
2019 Apr 18
0
Bug in the "reformulate" function in stats package
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
2011 Aug 19
3
ATSP to TSP reformulation
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
2019 Mar 29
2
Bug in the "reformulate" function in stats package
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
2019 Apr 18
1
Bug in the "reformulate" function in stats package
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
2019 Mar 28
2
Bug in the "reformulate" function in stats package
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
2019 Mar 29
0
Bug in the "reformulate" function in stats package
>>>>> 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
2019 Mar 29
0
Bug in the "reformulate" function in stats package
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
2007 Mar 02
3
Reformulated matrices dimensions limitation problem
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.
2016 Aug 24
3
Request suggestions about how to remove redundencies caused by SCEV expansion fundementally
> On Aug 23, 2016, at 11:30 PM, Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Wei,
>
> I've not seen GCC's SCEV so I cannot make a comparative comment here
> (maybe Chris, Andy or Dan can chime in here), but I personally am in
> the "make the cleanup passes smarter" camp. We can also try to make
> SCEV expansion smarter -- not by
2019 Oct 04
0
Error in [.terms
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>>=
2009 Nov 18
2
Website
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
2009 Mar 15
2
Sun ONE and Samba
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 LANMAN passwords are kept, I could write my own PAM and
get somewhere.
2004 Nov 23
2
IFELSE across large array?
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 a mask
2016 Mar 31
1
LoopStrengthReduce.cpp
> On that note, I think that in general it would be useful to have some
> target-independent (CodeGen) pass that would do the majority of 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