similar to: Changing function arguments

?"=", ?"==", ?"!=", ?">=", and ?"<=" sends me to the documentation for ?help on Windows, while returning the correct documentation on Linux. Robert > version _ platform i386-pc-mingw32 arch i386 os mingw32 system i386, mingw32 status major 2 minor

I was recently browsing through CRAN's Finance task view to remind myself of the publicly available packages relevant to my work. As the reference manuals are all online, I am able to flip through the available functions to get an idea of the package's scope before downloading. That said, many authors have taken the time to additionally provide a useful vignette which provides a better

Hello, I'm trying to convert times in the EST/EDT (New York) format to times in the GMT/BST (London) and UTC+9 format (Tokyo). That is, if I know what time it is in New York, what is local time in London and Tokyo? Ex: Here's the conversion from New York EST/EDT time to London's GMT/BST time zone for three days in 2007. Note that the US and London change to daylight savings on

I was unaware until recently that partial matching was used to index data frames and lists. This is now causing a great deal of problems in my code as I sometimes index a list without knowing what elements it contains, expecting a NULL if the column does not exist. However, if partial matching is used, sometimes R will return an object I do not want. My question, is there an easy way of getting

R-help, Given a simple linear model, say lm(x ~ y + z), I would like to remove model terms that are factors with only one level. Thus, if 'z' were a factor with only one level, lm(x ~ y + z) becomes lm(x ~ y + 1). Likewise, if both 'y' and 'z' are one-level factors, then the resulting calculation is simply lm(x ~ 1). Unfortunately, I have not been able to come up with an

I'm trying to build a recursive set of functions that take a set of arguments, change some of the arguments and recursively call the same (or different) function. For example here's a stupid recursive counting function that prints back all integers from x to 0 (and ignores arguments y and z) cnt <- function(x, y, z) { stopifnot(is.numeric(x)) print (x) recursionFUN <-

I came across the below mis-feature/bug using match with POSIXlt objects (from strptime) in R 2.11.1 (though this appears to be an old issue). > x <- as.POSIXlt(Sys.Date()) > table <- as.POSIXlt(Sys.Date()+0:5) > length(x) [1] 1 > x %in% table # I expect TRUE [1] FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE > match(x, table) # I expect 1 [1] NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Hello, I found a potential problem in R 2.1.0 (and R 2.0.1) I expect that > tmp <- FUN(x1, x2, x3, x4) > as.data.frame(tmp) is the same as > as.data.frame(FUN(x1, x2, x3, x4)) since the tmp variable in this case is unnecessary. However, below I will demonstrate that under an odd set of conditions, I can correctly perform as.data.frame(tmp), but not as.data.frame(FUN(x1, x2, x3,

Hello, I've decided to take the leap and try my hand at the lattice package, though I am getting stuck at what one might consider a trivial problem, plotting text at a point in a graph. Apologies in advance if (that) I'm missing something extremely basic. Consider in base graphics: > plot(1:10) > text(2, 4, "Text") In the above you will see text centered at the point (2,

Hello all, I just upgraded to R 2.7.0 and found that the behavior of 'var' and 'sd' have changed in the presence NAs (this wasn't explicit in the NEWS file, though I see it probably has to do with the change for cor/cov). Anyway, I just want to make sure that it was intentional to produce an error when there was all NAs and na.rm=TRUE, rather than returning an NA (like R

I have found a solution to the new("call") problem that I believe produces the correct behavior for the default call object, and am also reclassifying this as a bug, as I believe the current behavior to be incorrect. Recap, the following error occurs: > new("call") Error in print("<undef>"()) : couldn't find function "<undef>" It looks

Hello, I wanted to suggest that the below method for split.Date be added to the base library to significantly speed up splits with values of class Date. In the below example I show a speed improvement of 175x for 1000 data points. On a vector of size 1e6, the time difference was 22 minutes for split.default versus 0.3 seconds for the split.Date function below (!). Note that this improvement will

FYI, I've tried posting the below message twice to the bug tracking system, once by email (below), and the second time 5 days later directly to the bugs.r-project.org website. As far as I can tell, the bug tracking system hasn't picked this up. Also it looks like the latest "incoming" bug is dated 25 May 2008, so perhaps others are having difficulty as well. (cc: r-bugs)

There seems to be a bug in seq.Date such that it will not allow the user to pass in length.out =3D NULL, despite the fact that this is the = default argument. For example: > dt1 <- as.Date("2004-12-31") > dt2 <- as.Date("2005-12-31") > seq.Date(dt1, dt2, length.out =3D NULL, by =3D "month") Error in seq.Date(dt1, dt2, length.out =3D NULL, by =3D

R-help, I'm the primary developer for an increasingly large R package with over three thousand lines of code. Unfortunately, do the complexity of the code, I sometimes am required to change several interoperating parts of the package before testing for bugs and performance. And sometimes unnoticed syntax errors slip in that cause Rcmd check / INSTALL to fail with such messages as: Error in

R-devel, I discovered a segfault in my R code that boiled down to my incorrect use of the Recall() function embedded within a with() function. Since segfaults are generally bad things, even when it's the user's fault for writing nonsense code, I thought I'd pass along the offending code. I've tested the crash on R 2.11.1 (on Linux and Mac), but not in devel versions of R. HTH,

Hello, I was playing around with the newly implemented 'incomparables' argument in 'match' and realized the argument does not behave anything like I expected. Can someone explain what is going on here? Sorry if I'm misreading the documentation. > match(1:3, 1:3, incomparables=1) [1] NA 2 3 # This seems right, the 1 in 'x' is 'incomparable' >

I glanced at the .leap.seconds object and noticed that it has not been updated for the most recent leap second that occurred 2005 December 31, 23h 59m 60s. See the IERS bulletin here: http://hpiers.obspm.fr/iers/bul/bulc/bulletinc.dat Moreover, after a more careful glance at the .leap.seconds object, I noticed that there are two incorrect entries. First, there was not a leap second on 1986 June

Greetings, I'm having some difficulties with evaluating very long expressions (Windows/Linux 2.0.1), as seen below, and would greatly appreciate any help, thoughts or work arounds. Let's say that I wanted to see what I would get if I added 1 to itself 498 times. One way of doing this would be to evaluate the expression 1+1+1+... > eval(parse(text = paste(rep(1, 498), collapse =

Hello, I have been running linear regressions on large data sets. As 'lm' saves a great deal of extraneous (for me) data including the residuals, fitted.values, model frame, etc., I generally set these to NULL within the object before saving off the model to a file. In the below example, however, I have found that depending on whether or not I run 'lm' within another function or