similar to: overly long lines in pdf output of manual from package

Dear R users When I use OPTIM with BFGS, I've got a significant result without an error message. However, when I use OPTIMX with BFGS( or spg), I've got the following an error message. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > optimx(par=theta0, fn=obj.fy, gr=gr.fy, method="BFGS", >

With some chagrin after spending a couple of hours trying to debug a script, I realized I had typed in something like ans<-optimx(start, myfn, mygr, lower<-lo, upper=up) that is, the "<-" rather than "=". The outcome on my machine was a non-obvious error several layers deep in the call stack. For info, optim() seems to stop much more quickly. The error is

I was preparing a fix for a minor glitch in my optimx package and R CMD check gave an error that the title was not in title case. It is A Replacement and Extension of the optim() Function R CMD check suggests the incorrect form A Replacement and Extension of the Optim() Function 'Writing R Extensions' suggests single quotes, i.e., A Replacement and Extension of the 'optim()'

This is mainly a reminder to others developing R packages to be careful not to supply control list items that are not used by the called package. Optimx is a wrapper package that aims to provide a common syntax to a number of existing optimization packages. Recently in extending optimx package I inadvertently introduced a new control for optimx which is NOT in any of the wrapped optimization

> On 25 Apr 2015, at 13:11 , Prof J C Nash (U30A) <nashjc at uottawa.ca> wrote: > > Hendrik pointed out it was the parentheses that gave the complaint. > Single quotes and no parentheses seem to satisfy R CMD check. Perhaps > that needs to be in the WRE. Well, it is in ?toTitleCase: ...However, unknown technical terms will be capitalized unless they are single

Prof Nash, Prof Galanos Is it possible to use a generic code stub in front of packages that use optimx to improve optimx use or curtail it according to the requirements? Best Regards Amit +91 7899381263 ________________________________________________________________________ Please request Skype as available 5th Year FPM (Ph.D.) in Finance and Accounting Area Indian Institute

On 24.04.2015 22:44, Ben Bolker wrote: > Prof J C Nash (U30A <nashjc <at> uottawa.ca> writes: > >> >> I was preparing a fix for a minor glitch in my optimx package and R CMD >> check gave an error that the title was not in title case. > > [snip] to make Gmane happy ... > >> I have found >> >> A Replacement and Extension of the

I have not included the previous postings because they came out very strangely on my mail reader. However, the question concerned the choice of minimizer for the zeroinfl() function, which apparently allows any of the current 6 methods of optim() for this purpose. The original poster wanted to use Newton-Raphson. Newton-Raphson (or just Newton for simplicity) is commonly thought to be the

Hi, Mark et al.: Thanks, Mark. Three comments: 1. Rvmmin was one of the methods I tried after Ravi directed me to optimx. It returned NAs for essentially everything. See my email of this subject stamped 4:43 PM Central time = 21:43 UTC. 2. It would be interesting to know if the current algorithm behind optim and optimx with

Dear list, I am trying to produce a pdf manual using Rtools (version 3.1.0.1936) on Windows 8 (64-bit). I am also aware of the inconsolata issue posted in the forum (https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-devel/2013-June/066850.html), and then I have installed the patched version of R-3.0.1. However I still have some errors with the following message: R CMD Rd2pdf mypack Hmm ... looks like a package

Recently I reported a small bug in optim's SANN method failing to report that it had exceeded the maximum function evaluation limit in the convergence code. This is a small enough matter that I was reluctant to create a full-blown bug report. Indeed in the optimx package Ravi Varadhan and I have been developing on r-forge (under the OptimizeR project) it was a minimal work around to fix

This message is about a curious difference in timing between two ways of computing the same function. One uses expm, so is expected to be a bit slower, but "a bit" turned out to be a factor of >1000. The code is below. We would be grateful if anyone can point out any egregious bad practice in our code, or enlighten us on why one approach is so much slower than the other. The problem

Hello: The development version of Ecdat on R-Forge contains a vignette in which optim(?, method=?L-BFGS-B?) stops with an error message while violating the lower bound. To see all the details, try the following: install.packages("Ecdat", repos="http://R-Forge.R-project.org") Then do "help(pac=Ecdat)" -> "User guides, package

Hi list, When using R CMD Rd2pdf, it is possible to set environment variable RD2PDF_INPUTENC to value "inputenx" and enjoy better support for UTF-8 characters (see ?Rd2pdf). This enables LaTeX package "inputenx" instead of "inputenc". Even better support for UTF-8 encoded characters can be had by better using the facilities provided by inputenx and making R CMD

Ravi Varadhan and I have been looking at UCMINF to try to identify why it gives occasional (but not reproducible) errors, seemingly on Windows only. There is some suspicion that its use of DBLEPR for finessing the Fortran WRITE() statements may be to blame. While I can find DBLEPR in Venables and Ripley, it doesn't get much mention after about 2000 in the archives, though it is in the R FAQ

Ravi Varadhan and I have been looking at UCMINF to try to identify why it gives occasional (but not reproducible) errors, seemingly on Windows only. There is some suspicion that its use of DBLEPR for finessing the Fortran WRITE() statements may be to blame. While I can find DBLEPR in Venables and Ripley, it doesn't get much mention after about 2000 in the archives, though it is in the R FAQ

R Community, I often am in need of viewing the reference manuals of packages and do not have Internet access. I have used the code: path <- find.package('tm') system(paste(shQuote(file.path(R.home("bin"), "R")),"CMD", "Rd2pdf",shQuote(path))) someone kindly provided from this help list to generate the manuals from the latex files. This

No, I do not get the same as you. I have tested with R-devel and R-patched compiled today. When I do R CMD Rd2pdf mpra I get (as reported a few days ago) Hmm ... looks like a package Converting Rd files to LaTeX Error : mpra/man/mpra-package.Rd:6: file './DESCRIPTION' does not exist whereas you (Kurt) reports that this works on zTree. When I do R CMD Rd2pdf mpra/man I get - a

> The command Rd2pdf was rather useful for opening a package's manual > when you don't have access to the Internet (by using latex to pdf > conversion). However the way the function seems to operate changed at > version 2.14 of R. The noted changes listed on CRAN for this function > are as follows (which doesn't seem like it would affect my usage as > below): >

Sorry for the noise. I assumed I could run this in the same directory as R CMD check. If I cd into the package dir, and run it like R CMD Rd2pdf man it works. I was a bit sleep deprived yesterday. The fact that the output starts by Hmm ... looks like a package threw me off. That output suggests it should work, I think. So I would suggests either 1) handling both package and man directories