search for: syntactically

Hi all, Is there any easy way to tell if a string is a syntactically valid name? e.g. is.syntactic("X123") # TRUE is.syntactic("[[") # FALSE One implementation would be: is.syntactic <- function(x) x == make.names(x) but I wonder if there's a more elegant way. Thanks! Hadley -- Assistant Professor / Dobelman Family Junior Chair De...

...bugging code, just >> call options(DEBUG_ISSUE_XYX=TRUE)). > > > (a) The foregoing is getting too subtle for my feeble brain. > > (b) A fundamental problem with the > > if(FALSE) { > ... > } > > paradigm is that the enclosed code must be syntactically valid, and > there are certainly situations in which one might wish to comment out > sections of code that are *not* syntactically valid. E.g. one might > wish to comment out *part* of a piece of syntactically valid code for > the purpose of experimenting with an alternative approach....

...s(DEBUG_ISSUE_XYX=TRUE)). >> >> >> (a) The foregoing is getting too subtle for my feeble brain. >> >> (b) A fundamental problem with the >> >> if(FALSE) { >> ... >> } >> >> paradigm is that the enclosed code must be syntactically valid, and >> there are certainly situations in which one might wish to comment out >> sections of code that are *not* syntactically valid. E.g. one might >> wish to comment out *part* of a piece of syntactically valid code for >> the purpose of experimenting with an altern...

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1137 Bug ID: 1137 Summary: Element "flow tables" should not be syntactically unique... Product: nftables Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: NEW Severity: enhancement Priority: P5 Component: kernel Assignee: pablo at netfilter.org R...

describe "should_not == vs. should !=" it do 5.should_not == 6 end # passes it do 5.should != 6 end # fails end # I''m running the rspec 1.1.2 gem with the corresponding Textmate bundle # The second failure surprises me. # Is != not supported? # I''d like to hear what you all think. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was

On Tue, 4 May 2004, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Tue, 4 May 2004, Chris Lattner wrote: > > I suspect that a large reason that LLVM does worst than a native C > > compiler with the CBE+GCC is that LLVM generates very low-level C code, > > and I'm not convinced that GCC is doing a very good job (ie, without > > syntactic loops). > > Yup, this is EXACTLY what is

...ou > would not even have to change code to re-enable the debugging code, just > call options(DEBUG_ISSUE_XYX=TRUE)). (a) The foregoing is getting too subtle for my feeble brain. (b) A fundamental problem with the if(FALSE) { ... } paradigm is that the enclosed code must be syntactically valid, and there are certainly situations in which one might wish to comment out sections of code that are *not* syntactically valid. E.g. one might wish to comment out *part* of a piece of syntactically valid code for the purpose of experimenting with an alternative approach. cheers, Rolf...

Consider: x <- list(`a b` = 1) x$a<tab> (i.e., press the 'tab' key after typing 'x$a') The auto-complete mechanism will fill the buffer like so: x$a b This is not particularly helpful because this is now a syntax error. It seems to me there's a simple fix -- in utils:::specialCompletions(), we can wrap the result of utils:::specialOpCompletionsHelper() with

I have always been intrigued by why ?for (or ?if,?while,etc) leave R wanting for more: > ?for + I know the help for these is in ?Control, but I sometimes make the mistake of typing ?for instead. What is R expecting me to say to finish the statement? Thanks, Angel [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

## This is an example where ``-quoted non-syntactic names work in ## simple formulas, but not in formulas with an Error() term. ## Is this intentional or an oversight when ``-quoted names were added? tmp <- data.frame(y=1:6, `x^1`=factor(c(1,2,1,2,1,2)), `x^2`=factor(c(1,1,2,2,3,3)), check.names=FALSE) tmp aov(y ~ `x^1` + `x^2`, data=tmp)

...SE nodes of MemorySSA also have left-hand side, we can correctly represent this kind of reorderability IMHO. For the example above: U1 = USE(M0) // corresponding to `v = load q` M1 = DEF(M0, U1) // corresponding to `store 10, p` Now there is a syntactic dependency between M1 and U1, hence we can syntactically check whether reordering is allowed without any flow-sensitive analysis. If the store and load don't alias, we can remove U1 from DEF: U1 = USE(M0) // corresponding to `v = load q` M1 = DEF(M0) // corresponding to `store 10, p` Then, the reordering is valid. One issue is regarding PHI node:...

Currently in R, constructing a string containing values of variables is done using 'paste' and can be an error-prone and traumatic experience. For example, when constructing a db query we have to write, paste("SELECT " value " FROM table where date ='",cdate,"'") we are getting null result from it, because without (forgotten...)

...patch (stating explicitly that if termlabels has length > 1 its elements are concatenated with "+", and explicitly stating that non-syntactic names must be protected with back-ticks). (There is a little bit of obscurity in the fact that the elements of termlabels don't have to be syntactically valid names: many will be included in formulas if they can be interpreted as *parseable* expressions, e.g. reformulate("x<2")) I would be happy to give it a shot if the consensus is that it would be worthwhile. One workaround to the OP's problem is below (may be worth includ...

It's interesting that you bring this up. I've seen a lot of TableGen error messages over the past couple of weeks and I don't recall being confused about any error or its location. I will give this a closer look. I agree that syntactic enhancements aren't particularly exciting by themselves. I was wondering whether some new features coupled with new backends would pave the way for

So, it seems there are enough people on the plus side, I just wanted to make sure we evaluate all sides before taking a decision to add syntactic sugar to LLVM assembler. My main concern is still the same as earlier this year: the integrated assembler for ARM is still not complete, and the more extensions we add to the back-end, the harder it'll be to get it into production quality. That

Great suggestion! I've started a patch: https://bugs.r-project.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18479 On Wed, Mar 1, 2023 at 1:56 AM Ivan Krylov <krylov.r00t at gmail.com> wrote: > > ? Wed, 1 Mar 2023 01:36:02 -0800 > Michael Chirico via R-devel <r-devel at r-project.org> ?????: > > > +comps[non_syntactic] <- paste0("`", comps[non_syntactic], "`") >

Dear R-gang, I have a question about handling underscores in names in R 1.8.1 and 1.9.0. I recently installed 1.9.0 on a machine and found that many codes no longer work as a result of the changed behavior in make.names. I have numerous data files that have dashes, periods and underscores in the header row. I've got numerous R codes that read those files with read.table and read.csv and

Now that I've learned my way around TableGen just a bit, I'd like to solicit suggestions for improving and enhancing it. Perhaps there are some lexical changes that could improve readability of .td files (e.g., I'm planning to enhance the lexer to allow an apostrophe as a digit group separator in integers, a la C++). Perhaps there are some syntactic enhancements that would make .td

Hi -- I've recently added some documentation to the LLVM docs subdirectory, and was wondering about a couple of things: - How should I best debug whether the docs (in RST) are syntactically correct? Are there recommended practices for doing a sanity check on the docs? - How often do the documents get built and uploaded to the website? Cheers -- Dean

There turn out to be a few more things to fix. One problem is easy to solve: vapply() needs a third argument specifying the type of the return value. (Can we have unit tests for tab completion?) The other problem is harder: `comps` defaults to an empty string, and you can't have a symbol consisting of an empty string, because this value is internally reserved for missing function arguments.