similar to: cat(fill=N)

Here is an attached patch. Best, Serguei. Le 29/05/2017 ? 12:21, Serguei Sokol a ?crit : > The problem or actual R implementation relies on an assumption > that median(x[i] | x[i] <= quantile(x, 1/3)) == quantile(x, 1/6) > which reveals not to be true despite very trustful appearance. > > If we continue with the example of x=y=1:9 > then quantile(x, 1/6)=2.5 (here quantile()

Le 22/01/2018 ? 17:40, Keith O'Hara a ?crit?: > This behavior is noted in the qr documentation, no? > > rank - the rank of x as computed by the decomposition(*): always full rank in the LAPACK case. For a me a "full rank matrix" is a matrix the rank of which is indeed min(nrow(A), ncol(A)) but here the meaning of "always is full rank" is somewhat confusing. Does it

Seriously, if a method gives a wrong result, it's wrong. line() does NOT implement the algorithm of Tukey, even not after the patch. We're not discussing Excel here, are we? The method of Tukey is rather clear, and it is NOT using the default quantile definition from the quantile function. Actually, it doesn't even use quantiles to define the groups. It just says that the groups

A usually trustworthy R correspondent posted a pure R implementation on SO at some point in his lost youth: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/3224731/john-tukey-median-median-or-resistant-line-statistical-test-for-r-and-line This one does indeed generate the line of identity for the (1:9, 1:9) case, so I do suspect that we have a genuine scr*wup in line(). Notice, incidentally, that >

>>>>> Serguei Sokol <sokol at insa-toulouse.fr> >>>>> on Tue, 30 May 2017 16:01:17 +0200 writes: > Le 30/05/2017 ? 09:33, Martin Maechler a ?crit : ... >> However, even after the patch, The example from the SO >> post differs from the result of Richie Cotton's >> function... > The explanation is quite simple.

Le 23/01/2018 ? 08:47, Martin Maechler a ?crit?: >>>>>> Serguei Sokol <sokol at insa-toulouse.fr> >>>>>> on Mon, 22 Jan 2018 17:57:47 +0100 writes: > > Le 22/01/2018 ? 17:40, Keith O'Hara a ?crit?: > >> This behavior is noted in the qr documentation, no? > >> > >> rank - the rank of x as

Hi, I would like to make a suggestion for a small syntactic modification of FUN argument in the family of functions [lsv]apply(). The idea is to allow one-liner expressions without typing "function(item) {...}" to surround them. The argument to the anonymous function is simply referred as ".". Let take an example. With this new feature, the following call

Le 05/07/2017 ? 13:09, Duncan Murdoch a ?crit : > On 05/07/2017 5:26 AM, January W. wrote: >> I tried the newest patch, but it does not seem to work for me (on >> Linux). Despite the check in Rconn_printf, the write.csv happily writes >> to /dev/full and does not report an error. When I added a printf("%d\n", >> res); to the Rconn_printf() definition, I see

Hi, I have noticed different rank values calculated by qr() depending on LAPACK parameter. When it is FALSE (default) a true rank is estimated and returned. Unfortunately, when LAPACK is set to TRUE, the min(nrow(A), ncol(A)) is returned which is only occasionally a true rank. Would not it be more consistent to replace the rank in the latter case by something based on the following pseudo code ?

I'm sure this exists elsewhere, but, as a trade-off, could you achieve what you want with a separate helper function F(expr) that constructs the function you want to pass to [lsv]apply()? Something that would allow you to write: sapply(split(mtcars, mtcars$cyl), F(summary(lm(mpg ~ wt,.))$r.squared)) Such an F() function would apply elsewhere too. /Henrik On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 9:30 AM

Le 10/01/2023 ? 11:37, Serguei Sokol a ?crit?: > Le 10/01/2023 ? 10:44, RICHET Yann a ?crit?: >> Dear R-devel people, >> >> We are working to submit a package which is mainly a binding over a >> C++ lib (https://github.com/libKriging) using armadillo. >> It is _not_ a standard RcppArmadillo package, because we also had to >> provide a python binding... so

Thanks Simon, Now, I see better your argument. Le 16/04/2020 ? 22:48, Simon Urbanek a ?crit?: > ... I'm not arguing against the principle, I'm arguing about your > particular proposal as it is inconsistent and not general. This sounds promising for me. May be in a (new?) future, R core will come with a correct proposal for this principle? Meanwhile, to avoid substitute(),

Le 10/01/2023 ? 10:44, RICHET Yann a ?crit?: > Dear R-devel people, > > We are working to submit a package which is mainly a binding over a C++ lib (https://github.com/libKriging) using armadillo. > It is _not_ a standard RcppArmadillo package, because we also had to provide a python binding... so there is a huge layer of cmake & scripting to make it work with a standard armadillo

Simon, Thanks for replying. In what follows I won't try to argue (I understood that you find this a bad idea) but I would like to make clearer some of your point for me (and may be for others). Le 16/04/2020 ? 16:48, Simon Urbanek a ?crit?: > Serguei, >> On 17/04/2020, at 2:24 AM, Sokol Serguei <sokol at insa-toulouse.fr> >> wrote: Hi, I would like to make a

Le 19/04/2020 ? 20:46, Gabor Grothendieck a ?crit?: > You can get pretty close to that already using fn$ in the gsubfn package: >> library(gsubfn) fn$sapply(split(mtcars, mtcars$cyl), x ~ >> summary(lm(mpg ~ wt, x))$r.squared) > 4 6 8 0.5086326 0.4645102 0.4229655 Right, I thought about similar syntax but this implementation has similar flaws pointed by Simon, i.e. it reduces

Le 15/05/2017 ? 15:37, Martin Maechler a ?crit : >>>>>> Serguei Sokol <sokol at insa-toulouse.fr> >>>>>> on Mon, 15 May 2017 13:14:34 +0200 writes: > > I see in the archives that the attachment cannot pass. > > So, here is the code: > > [....... MM: I needed to reformat etc to match closely to > the current

Le 04/12/2018 ? 11:27, I?aki Ucar a ?crit?: > On Tue, 4 Dec 2018 at 11:12, <qweytr1 at mail.ustc.edu.cn> wrote: >> function ppois is a function calculate the CDF of Poisson distribution, it should generate a non-decreasing result, but what I got is: >> >>> any(diff(ppois(0:19,lambda=0.9))<0) >> [1] TRUE >> >> Actually, >> >>>

Le 31/05/2017 ? 17:30, Serguei Sokol a ?crit : > > More thorough reading revealed that I have overlooked this phrase in the > line's doc: "left and right /thirds/ of the data" (emphasis is mine). Oops. I have read the first ref returned by google and it happened to be tibco's doc, not the R's one. The layout is very similar hence my mistake. The latter does not

Hi, I came across a case when the dimensions of matrices returned by qr() operated on a sparse matrix does not coincide with the initial matrix. Here is a spinet code that should produce an example (one of many that I could provide): ?m=205 ?n=199 ?set.seed(7); ?a=matrix(rnorm(m*n), m, n) ?a[sample(seq(m*n), m*(n-4))]=0 ?a=as(a, "Matrix") ?qa=qr(a); ?stopifnot(nrow(qa at R) ==

This is getting pretty convoluted. The current behavior is consistent with the description at the top of the help page -- it does not promise to stop evaluation once the first non-TRUE is found. That seems OK to me -- if you want sequencing you can use stopifnot(A) stopifnot(B) or stopifnot(A && B) I could see an argument for a change that in the multiple argumetn case reports _all_