similar to: c(<Matrix>, <Matrix>) / help(dotsMethods) etc

>>>>> John Chambers <jmc at r-project.org> >>>>> on Sat, 10 Sep 2016 09:16:38 -0700 writes: > (Brief reply, I'm traveling but as per below, this is on my radar right now so wanted to comment.) > Two points regarding "dotsMethods". > 1. To clarify the limitation. It's not that all the arguments have to be of the same

(Brief reply, I'm traveling but as per below, this is on my radar right now so wanted to comment.) Two points regarding "dotsMethods". 1. To clarify the limitation. It's not that all the arguments have to be of the same class, but there must be one class that they belong to or subclass. (So, as in the example in the documentation, the method could be defined for a class

Hi all, I recently encountered some unexpected behavior with S4 generics dispatching on `...`, which I described in http://stackoverflow.com/questions/43499203/use-callnextmethod-with-dotsmethods TL;DR: `callNextMethod()` doesn't work in methods dispatching on `...`, and arguments of such methods are resolved differently than the arguments of methods dispatching on formal arguments. Could

Great, thanks Michael for you quick response! I started off with a question on SO because I was not sure whether this was an actual bug or I was just missing something obvious. I'm looking forward to the patch. Cheers, Andrzej On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 10:28 PM, Michael Lawrence < lawrence.michael at gene.com> wrote: > Thanks for pointing out these issues. I have a fix that I will

I've been asked in private, but am answering in public so others can comment / or find this answer in the future after a web search. This is about the package 'Rmpfr' (R interface to MPFR, the GNU C library for arbitrary precise numbers). > How can you build a vector of mpfr numbers sequentially? > Typically I would do something like the following (and try to > replace the

I attempted to fix it, and that example seems to work for me. It's also a (passing) regression test in R. Are you sure you're using a new enough R-devel? On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 2:34 AM, Andrzej Ole? <andrzej.oles at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Michael, > > thanks again for your patch! I've tested it and I'm happy to confirm that > `callNextMethod()` works with

Hi: I'm trying to reproduce an arbitrary precision constant from 'Why and How to Use Arbitrary Precision' (Ghazi et al., COMPUTING IN SCIENCE & ENGINEERING May/June 2010; http://perso.ens-lyon.fr/philippe.theveny/cise.pdf): d = 173746a + 94228b ? 78487c where: a = sin(1022), b = log(17.1), and c = exp(0.42). Ghazi et al. report: d = ?1.341818958e?12 whit IEEE-754 quadruple

Hello everyone, R beginner, I am confronted with the need to use Rmpf. In my first scripts I made use of X=read.table(file.choose(), header=FALSE, sep=",",dec=".") X=as.matrix(X) to load into a matrix data from file before matrix use. How can I do to load the same data in a "mpfrMatrix". Is it possible to use with "mpfrMatrix" the same as operations

I ported that over. On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 5:50 AM, Andrzej Ole? <andrzej.oles at gmail.com> wrote: > Thank you Michael for updating the 3.4 branch, the `callNextMethod()` now > works for `...` methods as expected. However, I'm still missing your other > patch fixing the handling of arguments in `...` methods. It would be really > great if this bugfix could be integrated

Thank you Martin for giving to know and developing 'Rmpfr' library for unlimited size integers (GNU C GMP) and arbitrary precision floats (GNU C MPFR): https://cran.r-project.org/package=Rmpfr My question is: In the long term (For R3.7.0 or R3.8.0): Does it have sense that CMP substitutes INTSXP, and MPFR substitutes REALSXP code? With this we would achieve that an integer is always an

On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 8:12 PM, Paul Gilbert <pgilbert902 at gmail.com> wrote: > > As I recall, several packages mask the simulate generic in stats, if you > are looking for examples. > FWIW, here is a list of base* functions masked** by CRAN packages: https://github.com/gaborcsardi/rfunctions/blob/master/rfunctions.md Look at the long table in the end. simulate indeed comes up

Thank you Gabriel for valuable insights on the 64-bit integers topic. In addition, my statement was wrong, as Python3 seems to have unlimited (and variable) size integers. Here is related CPython Code: https://github.com/python/cpython/blob/master/Objects/longobject.c Division between Int-32 and Int-64 seems to only happen in Python2. Best, Juan El mi?rcoles, 29 de mayo de 2019, Gabriel

Hi, I'm working on an S4 class that is expected to behave like an array. I have some difficulties when defining '[' and I wonder if someone could point me to the right direction: 1) Call the S4 object "obj" 2) Assume dim(obj) = c(10, 4, 2) 3) Suppose someone calls: obj[1:3,] , which is a mistake, given dim(obj); how do I detect such situations? Thank you very much for

All, Martin: Thanks for this and all the other things you are doing to both drive R forward and engage more with the community about things like this. Apologies for missing this discussion the first time it came around and if anything here has already been brought up, but I wonder what exactly you mean when you want recycling behavior. Specifically, based on an unrelated discussion with Henrik

Hi All, I was wodering if it is possible to increase the precision using R. I ran the script below in R and MAPLE and I got different results when k is large. Any idea how to fix this problem? thanks for your help for (k in 0:2000){ s=0 for(i in 0:k){ s=s+((-1)^i)*3456*(1+i*1/2000)^3000 } } -- View this message in context:

Dear R-devel readers, ( = people interested in the improvement and development of R). This is not the first time that this topic is raised. and I am in now state to promise that anything will result from this thread ... Still, I think the majority among us has agreed that 1) you should never use ifelse(test, yes, no) if you know that length(test) == 1, in which case if(test) yes

On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Hadley Wickham <h.wickham at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> One possibility would also be to consider a "numbers-only" or >> >> rather "same type"-only {e.g., would also work for characters} >> >> version. >> >> > I don't know what you mean by these. >> >> In the

This was originally a bug report about Matrix, https://r-forge.r-project.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=294&aid=6325&group_id=61 but the bug is rather a "design" bug in R, or a limitation. This e-mail is a report of the status quo as I see it, and call for comments, sugguests, help/hints for workarounds, or even a suggestion for a programming task helping R core to amend

Dear R-developers, Using .Call I pass a S4 class with e.g. the following class definition: setClass("mmatrix",representation( data="matrix") ) On the "C side" i do mat = GET_SLOT(vs,install("data")); and then: printf("%f\n",NUMERIC_POINTER(mat)[1]); The above print statement produces the correct output if xx<- new("mmatrix")

Hi Michael, thanks again for your patch! I've tested it and I'm happy to confirm that `callNextMethod()` works with methods dispatching on `...`. However, the second issue I reported still seems to be unresolved. Consider the following toy example, where the `f()` calls differ in result depending on whether the dispatch happens on a formal argument or the `...` argument. f =