search for: tr1

...de ################################################### ## Example Code from the "green book" setClass("track", representation(x = "numeric", y = "numeric")) setMethod("Math", "track", function(x){ x@y = callGeneric(x@y); x }) tr1 <- new("track", x = 1:3, y = 1:3) tr1 ## are documented as belonging to group "Math" ## see ?"Math" ## but don't work log(tr1) log10(tr1) gamma(tr1) lgamma(tr1) ## are not generic and don't belong to any group! is("log", "genericFunction&quo...

...rmula: y ~ trtt + (trtt - 1 | group3) + (trtt - 1 | group2) + (trtt - 1 | group1) Data: d1 AIC BIC logLik MLdeviance REMLdeviance 1819.454 2003.915 -874.7269 1736.421 1749.454 Random effects: Groups Name Variance Std.Dev. Corr group1 trtt1/TR1 0.115094 0.33926 trtt1/TR2 0.338576 0.58187 0.177 trtt2/TR1 0.141726 0.37647 -0.002 -0.007 trtt2/TR2 0.327869 0.57260 -0.007 -0.002 0.321 group2 trtt1/TR1 0.026259 0.16205 trtt1/TR2 0.021771 0.14755 0.325 trtt2/TR1...

...ion rw1020 on NT ESS using emacs ver. 20.4 ---------------------------------- I need to get the means for each column of a dataframe in the list created by splitting a data frame. At present, I am getting the mean of all columns in aggregate. The structure of the unsplit data is: > shuttle.tr1[1:10,] juliandate lat temp.degC 24892 305.9581 -43.18243 11.90729 24893 305.9581 -43.18258 11.90854 24894 305.9582 -43.18272 11.94356 24895 305.9582 -43.18286 11.95356 24896 305.9583 -43.18300 11.95544 24897 305.9583 -43.18315 11.97670 24898 305.9584 -43.18329 11.99...

.... A FIXME >> comment in ProfileData\CoverageMappingTest.cpp suggests that I'm not the >> only one to have tried and discovered that they cannot use this feature. The >> problem is that the version of googletest (v 1.8.0, released in Aug 2016) in >> the LLVM tree requires TR1 tuple support for this feature, which is not >> really supported in recent compilers, and has been explicitly disabled in >> our googletest CMakeLists.txt, thus disabling "Combine". >> >> I did a bit of looking around, and v 1.8.0 is indeed the last officially >...

...ple, extracted from pp. 38-42 of Chambers (1998) Programming with Data (Springer), works for me in S-Plus 6.2 but not R 1.9.0pat, which returns the indicated error messages: > setClass('track', representation(x="numeric", y="numeric")) [1] "track" > tr1 <- new("track", x=1:3, y=4:6) > setMethod("plot", + signature(x="track", y="missing"), + function(x, y, ...)plot(x at x, x at y, ...) + ) [1] "plot" > plot(tr1) Error in plot.window(xlim, ylim, log, asp, ...) : need finite xlim va...

...9;s still 6 different combinations, which I have to explicitly list. Combine would, by my understanding, allow me to do something like "Combine(Values(3, 4, 5), Values(DWARF32, DWARF64))". As to why it doesn't work in 1.8, it's because LLVM has explicitly overridden the GTEST_HAS_TR1_TUPLE define (see utils\unittest\CMakeLists.txt and r316798). The short-story is that it's because recent MSVC compilers (sorry, I guess I was too broad in my original statement) have started issuing TR1 deprecation warnings, combined with C++11 not being detected properly. On 15 March 2018 at...

...raphWriter. Is this useful to anyone else? Is it something desireable to contribute back? This also opens a larger question about whether making use of Boost components is a reasonable thing to do. We already have some Boost type traits in the llvm tree. Why not just use the real thing (or use tr1 type traits)? Certainly adding a dependency on Boost is a big change and deserves lots of scrutiny. But there is a ton of good stuff in there that is really useful for compiler work. In my own work I've made use of tuples, BGL, MPL (very limited), bind (also in tr1), optional, io_state_sav...

In C++ code for use in a R-3.1.0 package, my specific problem is that I would like to use <unordered_map> if it is available, or <tr1/unordered_map> if not, or <map> if all else fails. I (think I) can accomplish this with configure.ac as AC_INIT("DESCRIPTION") CXX=`"${R_HOME}/bin/R" CMD config CXX` CXXFLAGS=`"${R_HOME}/bin/R" CMD config CXXFLAGS` AC_CONFIG_HEADERS([src/config.h]) AC_LAN...

....opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php . > One other nice feature of using gtest is that it integrates with gmock, one > of the only really good C++ mocking libraries available. It was just > recently released. > > Just briefly looked at the googlemock site and it sys about needed tr1 > library. Third paragraph in System Requirements. It just struck me as > amusing that visual c++ people need boost then. > This is getting slightly off-topic (we're now talking about mocking libraries, rather than unittesting), but Visual Studio 2008 has a free add-on pack to add TR1...

Hello all, I have an ISDN termination box (TR1) that converts ISDN(Bri) to 2 normal analogue lines. The same number is assigned to these lines. These lines are connected to 2 spa3k registered to my asterisk box. When calls arrive, TR1 try to pass call to the first spa. If spa not takes the call immediately then try to pass to the other spa. T...

...g on figuring out why. I wrote a small testcase which passes. I'm working on reducing UpgradeParser.cc to a minimal testcase that shows the problem. I'm wondering if I've stumbled on a gcc bug. Is this an acceptable solution to the problem? Is importing these Boost components ok? tr1 includes all of the Boost type traits so another option is to just use those and impose a requirement that compilers used to build llvm must support tr1 type traits. GNU libstdc++ already does. -Dave

hello all R experts, how do I calculate the reliability between the two groups using the ICCs? I'll appreciate your reply, Thanks Sincerely, Supreet kaur, Biomedical research engineer, Nationwide Childrens Hospital, Columbus, OH (614)355-3509 [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

On Wed, 4 Jul 2007, David A. Greene wrote: > On Monday 02 July 2007 23:24, David A. Greene wrote: >>>> - Changing the API >>>> a) Template it to take two iterators. This causes code size bloat. >> >> This seems like the right solution to me. Unless llvm is running on >> extremely limited memory embedded systems, the extra code space >>

On Wednesday 04 July 2007 14:57, Chris Lattner wrote: > > template<typename InputIterator> > > CallInst(Value *Func, InputIterator ArgBegin, InputIterator ArgEnd, > > const std::string &Name = "", Instruction *InsertBefore = 0, > > Is it acceptable to just make the template argument be the container? > That way you could pass: > >

On Wed, 4 Jul 2007, David A. Greene wrote: > I have to think about this a bit but one complication is that clients aren't > always using std-like containers. There are several places that look like > this: > > Value *array = { v1, v2, v3, v4}; > blah = new CallInst(...,&array[0], 4,...); > > Since array doesn't have begin/end members we'd need some kind

On Thursday 05 July 2007 11:54, Chris Lattner wrote: > Here's another crazy idea. Instead of overloading the callinst ctor, why > not just add a static function to create the call (like binaryoperator and > friends): > > C = CallInst::CreateWithArgRange(X, B, V.begin(), V.end()); > > That way you can completely avoid the overloading issues. What's the

On Wednesday 04 July 2007 22:37, David A. Greene wrote: > On Wednesday 04 July 2007 15:46, Chris Lattner wrote: > > > Since array doesn't have begin/end members we'd need some kind of > > > specialization for that case. Iterators nicely avoid this issue. > > > > We should just keep the existing constructor, so this isn't a problem. > > These

On Thu, 5 Jul 2007, David Greene wrote: > On Thursday 05 July 2007 11:54, Chris Lattner wrote: >>> I've opted for the alternate approach: make all clients pass iterators. >>> That is, get rid of the specialized one- and two-argument constructors >>> entirely. >> That sounds reasonable. Please keep the "Value* + num elements" ctor as >> well

On Wednesday 04 July 2007 15:46, Chris Lattner wrote: > > Since array doesn't have begin/end members we'd need some kind of > > specialization for that case. Iterators nicely avoid this issue. > > We should just keep the existing constructor, so this isn't a problem. > These clients don't have the "dereference end" problem. Duh. Yep, ok, this

On Thursday 05 July 2007 11:54, Chris Lattner wrote: > > I've opted for the alternate approach: make all clients pass iterators. > > That is, get rid of the specialized one- and two-argument constructors > > entirely. > That sounds reasonable. Please keep the "Value* + num elements" ctor as > well though. Why? I can't think of a case where a client