similar to: warning from install.packages()

Is there a reason that Reduce() doesn't take a "..." argument that would allow arbitrary extra arguments to be passed through to the function? Here is a little example of how this would be convenient: z <- list( data.frame(state=c("California"), cases=0), data.frame(state=c("California","Massachusetts"),

Sweave does something clever with warnings, which I have so far been unable to figure out. There are a couple of threads on the list about this, but the best in here is a hack to redirect all the output and stick it back in. http://www.nabble.com/-R--Sweave-and-warning-messages-td7759353.html#a7759353

I want to put the correct information into the "author" field of the DESCRIPTION file for my bbmle package, which is a modified and extended version of the mle code in the stats4 package. If I put only myself as author I feel like I'm ignoring the contribution of R-Core (and I think Peter Dalgaard in particular) in writing the original code. If I add "R Development Core

optim ignores misspelled control parameters, so that trying to set (e.g.) "maxint=1000" in the control argument silently does nothing. The patch below (watch out for line breaks! also posted at http://www.zoo.ufl.edu/bolker/optim_patch.R , and http://www.zoo.ufl.edu/bolker/optim_new.R) adds three lines to optim.R that issue a warning if any names of elements of "control" fail

with the following simple data frame dd = structure(list(z = structure(c(1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L ), .Label = c("a", "b"), class = "factor"), x = c(0.3, 0.2, 0.1, 0, 0, 0, 0.2, 0.3)), .Names = c("z", "x"), row.names = c(NA, -8L), class = "data.frame") I would like know if it's possible to use model.matrix() to construct the

the version 2 parser thinks I have unnecessary braces, but I can't find any. False positive or am I missing something? If a false positive, is there any way to work around the warning? * checking Rd files against version 2 parser ... WARNING Warning: ./man/dbetabinom.Rd:32-34: Unnecessary braces at ?{p(x) = % (C(N,x)*Beta(N-x+theta*(1-p),x+theta*p))/% Beta(theta*(1-p),theta*p)}?

I am having difficulty with evaluation/environment construction for a formula to be evaluated by model.matrix(). Basically, I want to construct a model matrix that first looks in "newdata" for the values of the model parameters, then in "object at data". Here's what I've tried: 1. model.matrix(~f,data=c(newdata,object at data)) -- fails because something (terms()?)

Does anyone have an address for a maintainer, or know what's going on? cheers Ben Bolker ben at bolker-lap2:~$ ping wiki.r-project.org PING econum.umh.ac.be (193.190.194.5) 56(84) bytes of data. ^C --- econum.umh.ac.be ping statistics --- 8 packets transmitted, 0 received, 100% packet loss, time 6999ms ben at bolker-lap2:~$ traceroute wiki.r-project.org traceroute to

From: Vitalie S. <vitosmail <at> rambler.ru> Subject: Bug in cut.POSIXt Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.r.general Date: 2009-10-15 15:47:48 GMT (1 hour and 29 minutes ago) Hello Everyone, Before reporting decided to post here first: tt <- structure(c(1254238817, 1254238859, 1254238969, 1254239080), class = c("POSIXt",

I have found the "simulate" method (incorporated in some packages) very handy. As far as I can tell the only class for which simulate is actually implemented in base R is lm ... this is actually a little dangerous for a naive user who might be tempted to try simulate(X) where X is a glm fit instead, because it defaults to simulate.lm (since glm inherits from the lm class), and the

I'm very excited by the new mle package now incorporated in stats4. If possible, I'd like to help develop it. In the past I wrote a similar package (mleprof, available from http://www.zoo.ufl.edu/bolker/R/src), and would like to see if there's anything that my package does that I could contribute (in particular, I'd like to make sure that the code is as robust as possible in

OK, a boneheaded question ... I've made a set of packages for my students. I'm serving these packages from my web site in the form of a set of tar.gz source packages (constructed with R CMD build) and a set of .zip Windows binary packages, constructed by cross-compiling according to Brian Ripley's instructions (make pkg-foo in the src/gnuwin32 directory) and then zipping up the

Consider the following situation: we have quantified algal concentrations for a variety of species using many samples at each of three years. It seems to make sense to generate a line plot (matplot-like), with each species plotted as a separate line, with the points connected to emphasize the temporal pattern. The problem: lots of overlapping error bars. The question: from both a

I have a general style question about R coding. Suppose I'm writing a function (foo1) that calls other functions (foo2, foo3, ...) which have complicated argument lists (e.g. optim(), plot()), _and_ I may be calling several different functions in the body of foo1. Since foo2 and foo3 have different sets of arguments, I can't just use "..." ; I did write some code a while ago

It would be really nice if nlm took a set of "..." optional arguments that were passed through to the objective function. This level of hacking is probably slightly beyond me: is there a reason it would be technically difficult/inefficient? (I have a vague memory that it used to work this way either in S-PLUS or in some previous version of R, but I could easily be wrong.) Here's

I apologize in advance for not having done more homework in advance, but thought I would send this along to see if anyone else was seeing this. I am having some sort of ggplot2/plyr/very-recent-R-devel dependency issues. Just installed R Under development (unstable) (2014-09-01 r66509) -- "Unsuffered Consequences" from source. > packageVersion("ggplot2") [1]

I'm probably missing something very basic here, but: I've written some C code that I load into R dynamically. In the course of this C code, I generate some multinomial random deviates. I initially used the publically available "randlib" library, which also implements its own random number generator and binomial deviates (which are used to generate the multinomial deviates).

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 "Internationalization" is misspelled (as "Internationaliation") throughout the R-ints document ... I ran ispell on the texi document, diffs for this and a handful of other minor typos (fron/from, primiitve/primitive, etc.) are posted at http://www.zoo.ufl.edu/bolker/R-ints_diff.txt ... cheers Ben Bolker -----BEGIN PGP

I'm resending this after a decent interval of 20 days -- any opinions? Should I file it as a bug report? Is it my mistake? cheers Ben Bolker -------- Original Message -------- Subject: buglet (?) in de.restore() Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 13:29:33 -0400 From: Ben Bolker <bolker at zoo.ufl.edu> To: r-devel at r-project.org If one calls data.entry() with a matrix: A =

Any better (more efficient, built-in) ideas for computing coef[1]+coef[2]*x+coef[3]*x^2+ ... than polynom <- function(coef,x) { n <- length(coef) sum(coef*apply(matrix(c(rep(x,n),seq(0,n-1)),ncol=2),1,function(z)z[1]^z[2])) } ? Ben -- 318 Carr Hall bolker at zoo.ufl.edu Zoology Department, University of Florida http://www.zoo.ufl.edu/bolker