similar to: Allow dot in RHS of update.formula's old formula

> On 16 Jun 2017, at 15:59 , Robert McGehee <rmcgehee at walleyetrading.net> wrote: > > For instance, what would you expect to get from unlist() if each element of the list had different levels, or were both ordered, but in a different way, or if some elements of the list were factors and others were ordered factors? >> unlist(list(ordered(c("a","b")),

Hello again, It appears that get_all_vars() incorrectly handles model formulae that use a right-hand side (rhs) matrix. For example, consider these two substantively identical models: # model using named variables mpg <- mtcars$mpg wt <- mtcars$wt hp <- mtcars$hp m1 <- lm(mpg ~ wt + hp) # model using matrix y <- mtcars$mpg x <- cbind(mtcars$wt, mtcars$hp) m2 <- lm(y ~ x)

Hi Folks, I'm trying to cut my data inside the summaryBy function. Perhaps formulas don't work that way? I'd like to avoid adding another column if possible, but if I have to, I have to. Any ideas? Thanks, Allie require(doBy) df = dataframe(a <- rnorm(100), b <-rnorm(100)) summaryBy(a ~ cut(b,c(-100,-1,1,100)), data=df) # preferred solution, but it throws an

Defending the status quo misses the point that R *could* handle ordinal data with a fixed set of levels but actually *does not*. Although it would be useful. Even if this does not imply to handle any possible straw-man situations. Having data-types for nominal, ordinal, and interval-scale data is - in theory - one of the major advantages of S over SAS. But *having* without *handling* means: only

Does anyone know if there is a way to specify regressors dynamically rather than explicitly? More specifically, I have a data set in "long format" that details a number of individuals and their responses to a question (which can be positive, negative, or no answer). Each individual answers as many questions as they want, so there are a different number of rows per individual. For each

On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 2:24 PM, Robert McGehee <rmcgehee at walleyetrading.net> wrote: > Winston, > I had a similar experience to you tracking down an insanely difficult bug > in my R code that "disappeared" whenever slight changes were made to the > script (e.g. like adding cat() statements). In my case, it coincided with > my over-eager compilation of R and its

Dear R gurus, As part of finding initial values for a much more complicated fit I want to fit a function of the form y ~ a + bx + cx^d to fairly "noisy" data and have hit some problems. To demonstrate the specific R-related problem, here is an idealised data set, smaller and better fitting than reality: # idealised data set aDF <- data.frame( x= c(1.80, 9.27, 6.48, 2.61, 9.86,

Dear Colleagues, I would like to only inspect rules that contain a certain label substring on the rhs. In this special case the item labels are built like this: <itemtype>_<itemvalue> e.g. "Artikelgruppe_E0815" what I want to do is only show rules where "Artikelgruppe" is contained in the rhs - has anybody an idea how this could work? Sincerely

Ivan, Sorry, no, I wasn't clear enough. Both "op dst_reg,immediate,src_reg" and "op dst_reg,src_reg,immediate" are allowed in the ALU ops. For most instructions these are two different things - e.g. sub a,5,b is different from sub,a,b,5 obviously - but for things like add they just define the same thing. My problem is that LLVM won't allow immediates on the LHS of

I tend to avoid using as.<type> functions on lists, since they act oddly in several ways. E.g, if the list "L" consists entirely of scalar elements then as.numeric(L) acts like as.numeric(unlist(L)) but if any element is not a scalar there is an error. as.character() does not seem to make a distinction between the all-scalar and not-all-scalar cases but does various things with

Dear all, I was wondering if it is possible in TableGen to either: 1. Selectively define an instruction depending on an SDNode's properties, e.g. if the SDNode is not commutative. 2. Override/ignore the TableGen error given when a commutative node has an immediate on the LHS. My case comes from trying to define a generic ALU operation multiclass for my target, which includes a

I'm trying to use linphone-android with asterisk but there is an aspect of the way asterisk and linphone-android interact with MESSAGE transactions that is causing problems. The linphone-android folks consider both the To: and From: address in MESSAGE transactions when deciding which "chat" to put a received MESSAGE into. Every combination of To: and From: address are a separate

Georgi, Brilliant, thank you very much for the helpful reply and explanation! I added 'importFrom("Matrix","as.matrix")' to my NAMESPACE and all worked fine! As my 'as.matrix' method is used entirely internally to the 'testmat' function (and not "used outside the package"), I don't think I actually need to export it. In my case, testmat is

I am working on a new package, one in which the user needs to specify the role that different variables play in the analysis. Where I'm stumped is the best way to have users specify those roles. Approach #1: Separate formula for each special component First I thought to have users specify each formula separately, like: new.function(formula=y~X1+X2+X3, weights=~w,

##data y1 <- matrix(c(3,1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,1), nrow = 5, byrow = TRUE) y2 <- matrix(c (3,0,10,3,3,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,2,1,0,1,1,0,2,1,1,4,1), nrow = 5, byrow = TRUE) y1 <- as.data.frame(y1) y2 <- as.data.frame(y2) rownames(y1) <- rownames(y2) <- paste("site", 1:5, sep = "") colnames(y1) <-

Hi Paul, No need to collapse the information into a single text string, gregexpr() can take a vector of strings (sentences in your case). You can split your sentences up, number them how you want, then search for your pattern either via regex or via these extra packages you use which probably use the PCRE regex library anyway. However, as this is basically what you did, I'm not sure why

Hi Robert, Thank you for your reply. An attempt to solve this via a regular expression query is particularly helpful. Unfortunately, I don't have much time to play around with this just now. Ultimately though, I think I would like to implement a solution something along the lines of what you have done. I have a book on regular expressions that I am now starting to read. In the meantime, the

gReetings, I want to manipulate a formula object, containing the name "." so that "." is replaced by a desired (arbitrary) expression. What is a safe way to do this? Adrian Baddeley

On 5 April 2017 at 15:46, Winston Chang wrote: | On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 2:24 PM, Robert McGehee <rmcgehee at walleyetrading.net> | wrote: | | > Winston, | > I had a similar experience to you tracking down an insanely difficult bug | > in my R code that "disappeared" whenever slight changes were made to the | > script (e.g. like adding cat() statements). In my case, it

Hi Paul, Sounds like you have your answer, but for fun I thought I'd try solving your problem using only a regular expression query and base R. I believe this works: > txt <- "Patient had stage IV breast cancer. Nothing matches this sentence. Metastatic and breast match this sentence. French bike champion takes stage IV victory in Tour de France." > pattern <-