search for: svec

...faff [see http://127.0.0.1:17693/library/vars/html/irf.html] but I am unable to get the impulse response functions in a single graphical format. I then tried this command, where each variable response to an impulse was plotted: opar <-par(mfrow = c(3,2), mar=c(4.2,4.2,1,1), oma=c(0,0,0,0)) plot(svec.irfT1,main="T->G", ylab="", xlab="") plot(svec.irfT2, main="T->i",ylab="") plot(svec.irfT3,main="T->Y",ylab="") plot(svec.irfT4,main="T->T",ylab="") plot(svec.irfT5,main="T->P",ylab=&q...

...g=TRUE) #exp(d)->backtransform the estimates } c<-c(cohort,100) #untransformed initial values for the optimization,->100=N-x1-x2-x3 nvec<-c(rep("x",l-1),"N") #names for the initial vector nrs<-c(1:(l-1),1) #nrs for the initial vector svec = log(c) #transformation of the data to avoid constraints (x>0) names(svec) <- paste(nvec,nrs,sep="") parnames(mfun) <- names(svec) m1 = mle2(mfun,start=svec, vecpar=TRUE,fixed=svec[1:(l-1)]) #only estimate "N-x1-x2-x3",everything else is fixed...

...out an easy way to figure it out that there is no actual inline storage while reading the code. An alternative was to reserve the default to only "small object" so that N isn't zero, but there isn't a platform independent way of doing that and keep the code portable I believe. So `SVec<T>` is really saying: "I am willing to pay for some limite inline storage if possible but I don't have a N in mind". Finally the simple `llvm::Vector` case to replace `SmallVector<T, 0>` is because it is frequently preferable to `std::vector` but still isn't readable...

...ee any advantage to it while it has drawbacks: why would we do that? > > > An alternative was to reserve the default to only "small object" so that > N isn't zero, but there isn't a platform independent way of doing that and > keep the code portable I believe. So `SVec<T>` is really saying: "I am > willing to pay for some limite inline storage if possible but I don't have > a N in mind". > > That quoted statement still sounds like it could encapsulate the > possibility of 0 too, though. "limited inline storage if possible&q...

...ould we call out zero specially, if we want to avoid calling out other values explicitly) > An alternative was to reserve the default to only "small object" so that N isn't zero, but there isn't a platform independent way of doing that and keep the code portable I believe. So `SVec<T>` is really saying: "I am willing to pay for some limite inline storage if possible but I don't have a N in mind". That quoted statement still sounds like it could encapsulate the possibility of 0 too, though. "limited inline storage if possible" could be "and...

...w might be nice) that there are cases where you do want a small inline buffer even when you're nested inside another data structure and/or heap allocated (like tail allocations). Got any sense of the total value here? Major savings to be had? (if SmallVector<T> can do what your proposed SVec<T> does, that leaves the Vec<T> - could you expound on the benefits of SmallVector<T, 0> over std::vector<T>? I guess the SmallVectorImpl generic algorithm opportunities? Though that's rarely needed compared to ArrayRef.) If SmallVector<T> would suffice then maybe...

How to determine restricted variable in SVAR and SVEC? There are some values which set to be zero and others set to be NA.. How to determine values that set to be 0? Thanks Regards, Arif _________________________________________________________________ Facebook. k-basics.aspx?ocid=PID23461::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-id:SI_SB_2:092009 [[alte...

...ink about it on every use, we just let the default do what it's meant to do. >> > An alternative was to reserve the default to only "small object" so that N isn't zero, but there isn't a platform independent way of doing that and keep the code portable I believe. So `SVec<T>` is really saying: "I am willing to pay for some limite inline storage if possible but I don't have a N in mind". >> >> That quoted statement still sounds like it could encapsulate the >> possibility of 0 too, though. "limited inline storage if possible...

...do what it's meant to do. >>> >>> >> > An alternative was to reserve the default to only "small object" so >>> that N isn't zero, but there isn't a platform independent way of doing that >>> and keep the code portable I believe. So `SVec<T>` is really saying: "I am >>> willing to pay for some limite inline storage if possible but I don't have >>> a N in mind". >>> >> >>> >> That quoted statement still sounds like it could encapsulate the >>> >> possi...

...ry use, we just let the default do what it's meant to do. > > >> > An alternative was to reserve the default to only "small object" so > that N isn't zero, but there isn't a platform independent way of doing that > and keep the code portable I believe. So `SVec<T>` is really saying: "I am > willing to pay for some limite inline storage if possible but I don't have > a N in mind". > >> > >> That quoted statement still sounds like it could encapsulate the > >> possibility of 0 too, though. "limited i...

We've pretty happy now with a patch that adds two wrappers around SmallVector that make it 1) more convenient to use and 2) will tend to mitigate misuse of SmallVector. We think it's ready for wider discussion: https://reviews.llvm.org/D90884 SVec<T> is a convenience alias for SmallVector<T, N> with N chosen automatically to keep its size under 64 Bytes (that heuristic is easy to change though). The recommendation in the patch is to use this "on the stack, where a "small" number of elements are expected". Vec...

...let the default do what it's meant to do. >> >> >> > An alternative was to reserve the default to only "small object" so >> that N isn't zero, but there isn't a platform independent way of doing that >> and keep the code portable I believe. So `SVec<T>` is really saying: "I am >> willing to pay for some limite inline storage if possible but I don't have >> a N in mind". >> >> >> >> That quoted statement still sounds like it could encapsulate the >> >> possibility of 0 too, tho...

...'ve pretty happy now with a patch that adds two wrappers around SmallVector that make it 1) more convenient to use and 2) will tend to mitigate misuse of SmallVector. We think it's ready for wider discussion: https://reviews.llvm.org/D90884 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D90884> > > SVec<T> is a convenience alias for SmallVector<T, N> with N chosen automatically to keep its size under 64 Bytes (that heuristic is easy to change though). The recommendation in the patch is to use this "on the stack, where a "small" number of elements are expected". Hey...

...pretty happy now with a patch that adds two wrappers around SmallVector that make it 1) more convenient to use and 2) will tend to mitigate misuse of SmallVector. We think it's ready for wider discussion: https://reviews.llvm.org/D90884 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D90884> >> >> SVec<T> is a convenience alias for SmallVector<T, N> with N chosen automatically to keep its size under 64 Bytes (that heuristic is easy to change though). The recommendation in the patch is to use this "on the stack, where a "small" number of elements are expected". >...

Hello, I have a dataset with proportions that vary around a fixed mean, is it possible to use betareg to look at variance in the dispersion parameter while keeping the mean fixed? I am very new to R but have tried the following: svec<-c(qlogis(mean(data1$scaled)),0,0,0) f<-betareg(scaled~-1 | expt_label + grouped_hpi, data=data1, link.phi="log", control=betareg.control(start=svec)) I understood that y~-1 could be used to give a fixed mean of 0.5 however I get the following error: Error in linkinv(x %*% beta...

...rg> wrote: > > We've pretty happy now with a patch that adds two wrappers around > SmallVector that make it 1) more convenient to use and 2) will tend to > mitigate misuse of SmallVector. We think it's ready for wider discussion: > https://reviews.llvm.org/D90884 > > SVec<T> is a convenience alias for SmallVector<T, N> with N chosen > automatically to keep its size under 64 Bytes (that heuristic is easy to > change though). The recommendation in the patch is to use this "on the > stack, where a "small" number of elements are expec...

Hi all, I recently noticed that `qnbinom()` can take a long time to calculate a result if the `size` argument is very small. For example qnbinom(0.5, mu = 3, size = 1e-10) takes ~30 seconds on my computer. I used gdb to step through the qnbinom.c implementation and noticed that in line 106 (https://github.com/wch/r-source/blob/f8d4d7d48051860cc695b99db9be9cf439aee743/src/nmath/qnbinom.c#L106)

.../bugs.html ) ? Thanks! ?? Ben Bolker For what it's worth it doesn't seem to be a threshold effect: approximately log10(time[seconds]) ~ -8 - log10(-size) over the range from 1e-6 to 1e-9 ff <- function(x) { ?? system.time(qnbinom(0.5, mu=3, size=10^x))[["elapsed"]] } svec <- seq(-5,-9,by=-0.2) res <- lapply(svec, function(x) { ??? cat(x,"\n") ??? replicate(10,ff(x)) ??? }) dd <- data.frame(size=rep(svec,each=10), ???????????????? time=unlist(res)) boxplot(log10(time)~size, dd) summary(lm(log10(time)~size, data=dd, subset=time>0)) On 8/...

Full_Name: Justin Harrington Version: 2.4.0 OS: Fedora Core 6 Submission from: (NULL) (142.103.121.203) When I type the (albeit stupid) command eval(match.call()) R crashes with the following messages (truncated): *** buffer overflow detected ***: /usr/lib/R/bin/exec/R terminated The complete output is available at http://md.stat.ubc.ca/Routput.txt For reference, here are the results from

Hi! Is it somehow possible to disable the known_hosts checking for some hosts? The StrictHostKeyChecking affects only the asking about new computers, but doesn't affect the changed ones. I need it for the test computers, which are reinstalled twice/hour and I really don't like editing .ssh/known_hosts each time :-( Thanks Michal