similar to: R-alpha: Re: R-beta: Re: S Compatibility

Z. Todd Taylor writes: > I have a question/comment on this topic. If I understand what > I've read, R's lexical scoping rules are what require that all > of R's data be held in memory (as opposed to S's method of > storing each object on disk and reading it as often as > necessary). > My question is whether there will ever be a way around having to > store

Z. Todd Taylor writes: > I have a question/comment on this topic. If I understand what > I've read, R's lexical scoping rules are what require that all > of R's data be held in memory (as opposed to S's method of > storing each object on disk and reading it as often as > necessary). > My question is whether there will ever be a way around having to > store

Peter Dalgaard writes: > Ross Ihaka <ihaka at stat.auckland.ac.nz> writes: > > Many of the incompatibilities result from us not being familiar with > > some of the inner mysteries of S - these are generally pretty easy to > > fix. Some incompatibilities however result from the fact that R > > started life as a kind of Lisp interpreter. These can be quite a bit

Ross Ihaka <ihaka at stat.auckland.ac.nz> wrote: [ in response to discussions about S compatibility ] > Some things we almost certainly won't be changing. Scoping is one of > these (although I have to confess that I have made the pitch to Robert > that we should drop our scoping in favour of the S version - he > sensibly said "no"). I have a question/comment on

At 03:28 30/04/97, ihaka at stat.auckland.ac.nz wrote: >Bill Venables writes: > (As a complete side-issue, Brian Ripley and I have a kind of > convention: we refer to the language as "S" and the commercial > product as "S-PLUS". There is a useful distinction to be made.) > >This is generally what I try to do too. > >However, I suspect though that most

Ross Ihaka writes: > Peter Dalgaard writes: ************************ > > What he probably would tell you is that the FSF has a substantial "red > > tape" procedure for code contributions to ensure that nobody can claim > > to own parts of the code and thereby block the use of the entire > > product. You can't put code under GPL if you don't own it,

Bill Venables writes: > Are the scoping differences between R and S set out precisely and > definitively somewhere? This would be useful. In the source code perhaps? :-) You can find a pretty precise description in the article Robert and I did in JCGS. Actually its pretty simple. Functions have access to the variables which were in effect when the function was defined. f <-

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1318 Bug ID: 1318 Summary: Fragmented packet filtering is broken iptables compatibility tools Product: nftables Version: unspecified Hardware: x86_64 OS: other Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P5 Component:

Start S and detach the directory at position 2. S-PLUS : Copyright (c) 1988, 1996 MathSoft, Inc. S : Copyright AT&T. Version 3.4 Release 1 for Sun SPARC, SunOS 4.1.3_U1 : 1996 Working data will be in /users/rdev/ihaka/.Data > search() [1] "/users/rdev/ihaka/.Data" [2] "/usr/local/pkg/splus/splus-3.4/splus/.Functions" [3]

Look at the result of (in S-plus:) validate(verbose=TRUE, outfile="......./validate-3.4.out") which gives (for me, S-plus 3.4 on Solaris 2.5) 2106 Lines of output. It's full of tests using "standard data sets". (--> 'demos' available!) Basically, at the end of each example, there are statements which should return TRUE if the 'validation test' is

Read this morning >>> R : Copyright 1998, Robert Gentleman and Ross Ihaka >>> Version 0.61.2 Alpha (March 15, 1998) ----- So, there still is no "R beta" around.... - If I didn't know R, would I use a statistics software, if it was still in alpha testing state? - Is this really what we want to tell people about R? More to the point: I think, we could

Dear help I have been attenpting to compile R0.49 on both of these unix machines and have had no compilation errors but core dumps at run time. The HP UX box start out by putting up a graphics window and then crashing with the following error message before giving the prompt R : Copyright 1997, Robert Gentleman and Ross Ihaka Version 0.49 Beta (April 23, 1997) R is free software and

Hi, Try this: dat1<- read.csv("dat7.csv",header=TRUE,stringsAsFactors=FALSE,sep="\t") dat.bru<- dat1[!is.na(dat1$evnmt_brutal),] fun1<- function(dat){??? ? ??? lst1<- split(dat,dat$patient_id) ??? lst2<- lapply(lst1,function(x) x[cumsum(x$evnmt_brutal==0)>0,]) ??? lst3<- lapply(lst2,function(x) x[!(all(x$evnmt_brutal==1)|all(x$evnmt_brutal==0)),]) ???

I appeal to those entrusted with the keeping of the R flame, the S flame, and the S-Plus flame to relate a bit of history. How did S, S-Plus, and R get their names? Going from S to S-Plus appears clear, a commercial company purchased rights to S, developed a product that they wanted to indicate was related to S, but was more fully developed. This leaves me with only a rumor how S got its original

Bill Venables writes: ----- Begin Included Message ----- foresight) was publicly very supportive of Ross & Ron's efforts. ++++++ well I've never been called that before! ----- End Included Message ----- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= r-help mailing list -- Read http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.html Send

A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text Size: 1186 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-help/attachments/19980814/d985de5f/attachment.pl

A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text Size: 1298 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-help/attachments/19980220/79f41610/attachment.pl

Hello! First of all I would like to thank very much Guido Masarotto for the latest Win32 version of R. I've installed it painlessly on WinNT 4 Workstation, and it is loading and running fast. The only problems I've had thus far are demos 6 to 8 ("recursion", "scoping", and "is.things"), which cause a memory protection fault. I've a question regarding the

Martyn Plummer writes: > How important is it to avoid being sued, or less facetiously, what is > the legal status of R? If I were Mathsoft I would be less than pleased > at the development of R and would try to stop it if I could. I have > been wondering for some time if this is possible. But I am not a lawyer > and the issue seems very unclear to me. To me too (Robert spent a

Before you invest too much effort in fancy conversion scripts ... I really want to change the documentation format to something based on SGML - this should be much easier to parse than the present m4 macro-based stuff, and allow use to use more sophisticated tools for the construction and processing of documentation. Like much of R, the present solution was just a temporary hack ... But it is