similar to: argument order for Math2 group functions in R 2.6.x (PR#10681)

signif() is primitive in 2.6.x, and so uses positional matching (almost all primitives do). See the NEWS file for the announcement of the change. On Sat, 2 Feb 2008, ben.hansen at umich.edu wrote: > Full_Name: Ben Hansen > Version: 2.6.1 > OS: Windows > Submission from: (NULL) (66.93.3.101) > > > Hi, > > In R 2.6.0 or 2.6.1 on Windows, I get the following upon

Full_Name: Ben Hansen Version: 2.6.1 OS: Windows Submission from: (NULL) (66.93.3.101) Hi, In R 2.6.0 or 2.6.1 on Windows, I get the following upon opening the GUI (no previous commands or special settings): > signif(digits=4, x=1/3) [1] 4 It seems to be taking 4 to be the "x" argument, the number to be rounded. However, my understanding (perhaps mistaken) was that it should

------- Start of forwarded message ------- Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 21:44:57 +0100 To: Steve Mongin <sjm at ccbr.umn.edu> Cc: cran at r-project.org Subject: Re: range( <dates>, na.rm = TRUE ) In-Reply-To: <200711062044.OAA14064 at minnow.ccbr.umn.edu> Reply-To: Kurt.Hornik at wu-wien.ac.at From: Kurt Hornik <Kurt.Hornik at wu-wien.ac.at> X-AntiVirus: checked by AntiVir

[ Email repost 3 of 3 ] From: Dirk Eddelbuettel <edd at debian.org> To: R-devel org <r-devel at r-project.org> Subject: [Patch] Minor glitch in 'Writing R Extensions' Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2012 10:58:32 -0500 The (marked up in info mode) manual Writing R Extensions says in 6.1.3 -- Function: double fprec (double X, double DIGITS) Returns the value of X

>>>>> Fox, John <jfox at mcmaster.ca> >>>>> on Wed, 13 Sep 2017 22:45:07 +0000 writes: > Dear Terry, > Even the behaviour of lm() and glm() isn't entirely consistent. In both cases, singularity results in NA coefficients by default, and these are reported in the model summary and coefficient vector, but not in the coefficient covariance

(Drats! Jitterbug is playing tricks with the PR# again. Attempting to refile so that we can kill PR#10509) Peter Dalgaard wrote: > Kurt.Hornik at wu-wien.ac.at wrote: > =20 >> ------- Start of forwarded message ------- >> Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 21:44:57 +0100 >> To: Steve Mongin <sjm at ccbr.umn.edu> >> Cc: cran at r-project.org >> Subject: Re: range(

Dear Martin, I made three points which likely got lost because of the way I presented them: (1) Singularity is an unusual situation and should be made more prominent. It typically reflects a problem with the data or the specification of the model. That's not to say that it *never* makes sense to allow singular fits (as in the situations you mentions). I'd favour setting

Kurt.Hornik at wu-wien.ac.at wrote: > ------- Start of forwarded message ------- > Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 21:44:57 +0100 > To: Steve Mongin <sjm at ccbr.umn.edu> > Cc: cran at r-project.org > Subject: Re: range( <dates>, na.rm =3D TRUE ) > In-Reply-To: <200711062044.OAA14064 at minnow.ccbr.umn.edu> > Reply-To: Kurt.Hornik at wu-wien.ac.at > From: Kurt

Dear Trevor, I've noticed a discrepancy in the degrees of freedom reported by gam() from the gam package in R vs. gam() in S-PLUS. The nonparametric df differ by 1; otherwise (except for things that depend upon the df), the output is the same: --------- snip ------------ *** From R (gam version 0.93): > mod.gam <- gam(prestige ~ lo(income, span=.6), data=Prestige) >

Hi, I was told to send this to the -devel list instead of posting to bugzilla. When round our signif are called with a single named argument, R does not check the name and runs the function with that named argument directly as the first argument, using 0.0 or 6.0 (6 in the case of signif) for the second argument. Not checking the argument name is at odds with how all other primitive functions

Dear Terry, It's not surprising that different modeling functions behave differently in this respect because there's no articulated standard. Please see my response to Martin for my take on the singular.ok argument. For a highly sophisticated user like you, singular.ok=TRUE isn't problematic -- you're not going to fail to notice an NA in the coefficient vector -- but I've

Hi all, I noticed something strange when I ran aov and anova. vtot=c(7.29917, 7.29917, 7.29917) #identical values fac=as.factor(c(1,1,2)) #group 1 has first two elements, group 2 has the 3rd element When I run: > anova(lm(vtot~fac)) Analysis of Variance Table Response: vtot Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr(>F) fac 1 1.6818e-30 1.6818e-30 0.3333 0.6667 Residuals 1

signif(.) is a <primitive> function. Unfortunately, I couldn't even find WHERE in the source, signif(.) is defined. Here are the symptoms: xmin <- .Machine $ double.xmin signif(xmin,3) #--> NA umach <- unlist(.Machine)[paste("double.x", c("min","max"), sep='')] for(dig in 1:10) {cat("dig=",dig,": ");

Hi everyone, I'm witnessing an odd modelling phenomenon that I can't explain. If anyone has seen this before, or can explain what's going on would let me know, I'd be very grateful! Especially if I'm just being dim. I'm fitting a pair of continuous variates and their interaction to some residuals from another model. The sequential anova statement changes with the term

I ran a negative binomial logit hurdle model and am now trying to plot the effects of a continuous predictor variable (the only variable in my model) on the count and zero component and the overall mean response. I'm confused because for some values, the predicted overall mean is higher than the mean of the non-zero counts (range of predicted overall means=2.2-11.0; range of non-zero count

>>>>> Fox, John <jfox at mcmaster.ca> >>>>> on Thu, 14 Sep 2017 13:46:44 +0000 writes: > Dear Martin, I made three points which likely got lost > because of the way I presented them: > (1) Singularity is an unusual situation and should be made > more prominent. It typically reflects a problem with the > data or the

I've rolled up R-2.6.0.tar.gz a short while ago. This is a development release which contains a number of new features. In particular, the handling of data with a large number of identical strings should be more memory-efficient. Also, a number of mostly minor bugs have been fixed. See the full list of changes below. You can get it (later today) from

I've rolled up R-2.6.0.tar.gz a short while ago. This is a development release which contains a number of new features. In particular, the handling of data with a large number of identical strings should be more memory-efficient. Also, a number of mostly minor bugs have been fixed. See the full list of changes below. You can get it (later today) from

On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 9:55 PM David Winsemius <dwinsemius at comcast.net> wrote: > The premise in the first few lines of your preamble is at odds (in the > logical sense) with my understanding of primitive function behavior. Try: > > data.frame(x=1:2,y=letters[1:2])[j=2, i=1] > > David > I had never seen naming indexes of the [] operator. The documentation of []

# Your mailer is set to "none" (default on Windows), # hence we cannot send the bug report directly from R. # Please copy the bug report (after finishing it) to # your favorite email program and send it to # # r-bugs@biostat.ku.dk # ###################################################### I stumbled on this error while doing a classroom demonstration. The error is reproducible,