similar to: virtual superclasses

Hello all, I have,say 4 R objects... bar1, bar2, bar3, bar4.. that I'd like to include in an R package "foobar". The desired functionality would be: > library(foobar) > data(foo) > ls() [1] "bar1" "bar2" "bar3" "bar4" I've tried the following two approaches: 1) I created the file 'datalist' under pre-build directory

samba: I am attempting to set up a "group share" directory on Debian "Wheezy" where any user can create or place files and directories, and every other user has full access to those files and directories. The directory will be accessed both locally and via Samba. Here is my Linux, distribution, and file system info: $ cat /proc/version Linux version

Dear List, I need a barplot with vertical bars. Each bar should have a label. The problem is, that the labels are too long, so they overlap, or only every seccond label is displayed in the output. Here is a little syntax: dd <- c(100,110,90,105,95) barplot(dd,names.arg=c('Conduct Disorders','Attention Deficit', 'Eating Disorders',

This is just a note/wishlist/for the record: With foo1 <- function() { res; } foo2 <- function() { for (i in c()) res <- 1; res; } foo3 <- function() { while (FALSE) res <- 1; res; } foo4 <- function() { if (FALSE) res <- 1; res; } we get: > foo1() Error in foo1() : object 'res' not found > foo2() Error in foo2() : object 'res' not

Hi the list In the DESCRIPTION file of my package foo0, I have: Depends: foo1 Imports: foo2 Suggest: foo3 Enhence: foo4 If I understand correctly, to install foo0 on my computer, I need to already have foo1, foo2, foo3. foo4 is not necessary. I my R sesssion, when I will write: library(foo0), then the package foo1 will be attach. foo2, foo3 and foo4 will not. Is that correct? But what is

Hi all! I played around with the LLVM LTO example(https://llvm.org/docs/LinkTimeOptimization.html#example-of-link-time-optimization), but got some questions. As the document says, the function foo4 should be removed. However, under my test, function foo4 is not removed. I have tried both gnu ld with LLVMgold.so and lld, neither of them removes function foo4. I compile and run the example as

I came across a weird-looking use of LLVM_FALLTHROUGH which I think is completely spurious, but I figured I should check with the group mind before ripping it out. Basically, if you have multiple cases with no code in between, you do *not* need LLVM_FALLTHROUGH, right? switch (Foo) { case Bar1: LLVM_FALLTHROUGH; // not needed case Bar2: some code; return; case Bar3:

This is an obscure R/S incompatibility but it is tripping up some code for us in the lme library. If you specify the contrasts argument in a call to model.matrix, that seems to take precedence over the interpretation of the formula. In S if the formula contains a "- 1", that will cause the contrasts to be suppressed. S> foo <- data.frame(bar = factor(rep(1:3, rep(2,3)))) S>

Dear R Helpers, I am trying to find a way to identify all the objects in my environment that are all caps and then end with .f. I can do the all caps part pretty easily, but I have tried a number of variations on the \ and can't get a recognition of that operator. As a simple example A.f<-"foo1" AA.f<-"foo2" aa.f<-"foo3" A.a<-"foo4" ls()

I have two folders that I need to merge onto a remote host. The sources contain conflicting files, and I'm trying to rsolve these conflicts using per-directory filter rules. However, it seems as if these rule files are merged together into one, instead of being treated separately for each directory. Is this the way it's supposed to work? For example, I have: Source A: foo1.zip foo2.zip

On 03/07/2010 11:09 AM, Jochen Wilhelmy wrote: > Hi! Hi Jochen, > I'd like to find the point where the control flow joins after a branch. > > e.g. if I have the following function > > if (a< b) > foo1(); > else > foo2(); > bar(); > > Then the control flow splits at the basic block containing a< b with > a branch as terminator

> On May 17, 2016, at 1:33 AM, Shi, Steven via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hello, > Let me ask a LTO simple question again. For the llvm LTO example in the link:http://llvm.org/docs/LinkTimeOptimization.html <http://llvm.org/docs/LinkTimeOptimization.html>, I use below build commands to generate three different optimization level binary: -O0, -O1, -O2.

Hello, My user's imap folder locations are a mess. Some have them in /home/username/mail but a lot of them just have them in /home/username. So I need to have dovecot's base imapdir pointed directly at the user's homedirs. My problem now is that a lot of users have many links in their homedirs. Some even have circular links, such as: /home/username/foo/foo1/foo2/foo3/foo4 ->

Hi everyone, Hi ggplot users in particular, ggplot makes it very easy to plot things given their names when you use it interactively (and therefore can provide the names of the columns). qplot(x,foo,data=A) where A has columns (x,y,foo,bar) for example but I would like to use this from inside a function to which the name of the column is given. I cannot find an elegant way to make this

Hi there, RFC 5258 (IMAP4 LIST command extensions) defines a ?RECURSIVEMATCH? selection option which ?forces the server to return information about parent mailboxes that don't match other selection options, but have some submailboxes that do.? (Section 3.5 makes the requirement even clearer.) However that's not what Dovecot 2.3.7 does. AFAICT no LIST response is returned for mailboxes

Given the need for 4K doorbell such that QEMU can easily map, ect, and assuming that I have a HW device which exposes 2 VQ's, with a notification area off of BAR3, offset=whatever, notifier_multiplier=4, we don't need to have 2 x 4K pages mapped into the VM for both doorbells do we? The guest driver would ring DB0 at BAR4+offset, and DB1 at BAR4+offset+(4*1). The 4K per DB is useful how?

Thank you very much for your useful suggestions. These are exactly what I was looking for. foo <- list(foo1, foo2, foo3) lapply(foo, function(x) matrix(unlist(x), nrow = length(x), byrow = TRUE)) or lapply(foo, function(x) do.call('rbind', x)) Best, Muhammad Subianto On 4/11/06, Muhammad Subianto <msubianto at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear all, > I have a result my experiment

Dear all, I have a result my experiment like this below (here my toy example): foo1 <- list() foo1[[1]] <- c(10, 20, 30) foo1[[2]] <- c(11, 21, 31) foo2 <- list() foo2[[1]] <- c(100, 200, 300) foo2[[2]] <- c(110, 210, 310) foo3 <- list() foo3[[1]] <- c(1000, 2000, 3000) foo3[[2]] <- c(1100, 2100, 3100) list(foo1,foo2,foo3) The result: > list(foo1,foo2,foo3) [[1]]

> On May 17, 2016, at 11:21 AM, Umesh Kalappa <umesh.kalappa0 at gmail.com> wrote: > > Steven, > > As mehdi stated , the optimisation level is specific to linker and it > enables Inter-Pro opts passes ,please refer function To be very clear: the -O option may trigger *linker* optimizations as well, independently of LTO. -- Mehdi > >

On Wed, 13 May 2020 00:35:47 +0000 "Derrick, Jonathan" <jonathan.derrick at intel.com> wrote: > Hi Alex, > > I'm probably not getting the translation technical details correct. > > On Mon, 2020-05-11 at 16:59 -0600, Alex Williamson wrote: > > On Mon, 11 May 2020 15:01:27 -0400 > > Jon Derrick <jonathan.derrick at intel.com> wrote: > >