similar to: glm Argument-Evaluation Does Not Match Documentation.

G'day all, I had a look at the GLM code of R (1.4.1) and I believe that there are problems with the function "glm.fit" that may bite in rare circumstances. Note, I have no data set with which I ran into trouble. This report is solely based on having a look at the code. Below I append a listing of the glm.fit function as produced by my system. I have added line numbers so that I

Bug summary: glm() causes a segfault if the argument 'data' is a data frame with more than 16384 rows. Bug demonstration: -------input --------------- N <- 16400 df <- data.frame(x=runif(N, min=1,max=2),y=rpois(N, 2)) glm(y ~ x, family=poisson, data=df) ------ output --------------- *** caught segfault *** address (nil),

Hi, Currently the `gaussian' family's initialization code signals an error if any response data are zero or negative and a log link is used. Given that zero or negative response data are perfectly legitimate under the GLM fitted using `gaussian("log")', this seems a bit unsatisfactory. Might it be worth changing it? The current offending code from `gaussian' is:

I encountered a segfault running glm() and wonder if it could have something to do with the way memory is handled in a dual core system (which I just set up). I'm running R-base-2.4.0-1, installed from the SuSE 10.1 x86_64 rpm (obtained from CRAN). (My processor is an AMD Athlon 64 x2 4800+). The error and traceback are *** caught segfault *** address 0x8001326f2b, cause 'memory not

Yes, that will halve the number of multiplications. If you?re looking for such optimisations then you can also consider ifelse(G=='male', 65L, 58L). That will definitely use less time & memory if WC is integer, but the trade-offs are more complicated if WC is floating point. Regards, Jorgen Harmse. From: avi.e.gross at gmail.com <avi.e.gross at gmail.com> Date: Friday,

I appreciate the compliment from Ivan and still share the puzzlement at the empty return. What is the policy for changing something that is wrong? There is a trade-off between breaking old code that worked around a problem and breaking new code written by people who make reasonable assumptions. Mathematically, it seems obvious to me that duplicated.matrix(A) should do something like this: v

Dear List, I'm trying to create a formula method, allowing for a "special" character in the formula (i.e., similar to for example the gam package with the character "s" in y ~ s(x)). I've checked and it seems this is done through attr(,"specials"). However, the section of code below (as an example extracted from the gam package) gives me an error as shown at

--fupGvOGOQM Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Description: message body and .signature Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit There's a simple bug in the handling of the start and offset arguments in glm and glm.fit. The bug exists in the latest development version of R (version information below), but it appears that glm.R has not been touched much lately, so the bug affects at

Avi: Thank you for checking. I think the optimization is limited. If test is all TRUE or all FALSE then at most one vector is evaluated. Anything beyond that would be very complicated. (Inspect the two expressions and verify that both specify elementwise computations. Then use indexing to shrink the input properly. Take into account all recycling rules for binary operations.) > ifelse(0:1,

Just a minor point in the suggested solution: df$LAP <- with(df, ifelse(G=='male', (WC-65)*TG, (WC-58)*TG)) since WC and TG are not conditional, would this be a slight improvement? df$LAP <- with(df, TG*(WC - ifelse(G=='male', 65, 58))) -----Original Message----- From: R-help <r-help-bounces at r-project.org> On Behalf Of Jorgen Harmse via R-help Sent: Friday,

Thanks Jorgen. I thought your approach to getting the argument expressions was clever, but somewhat convoluted. I think the usual simple way is to use match.call() (or sys.call() )to get the unevaluated argument expressions; e.g. ... f <- function(...){ match.call() } > f(a = 'red', b = sin(zzz)) f(a = "red", b = sin(zzz)) The return value is an object of class call

It is a pretty tricky topic, but IMO Advanced R [1] steps you through it systematically... you just have to be prepared to follow along in R with the examples as you read it. In particular, the chapter on Functions goes through this. The subtleties of how base R gives you control over these topics is what lead to the tidyverse creating new packages to build such function interfaces. Manipulating

Bert and other on this Chain, The original question asked by Bert Gunter, highlights one of my long standing wishes. Perhaps my wish has already been fulfilled (if it has, please let me know where I can look of fulfill my wish), if it hasn't perhaps someone can grant me my wish. I have tried to understand how to write a function (beyond a basic function), get values of the parameters, and

Jeff: Would you care to offer an example of: "String literals are surprisingly simple alternatives that don't bite you in the butt nearly so often as NSE does." "No" is a perfectly acceptable answer. I would generally agree with you about NSE, but my original query was motivated by something simple. I like to use lattice graphics when I fool around with graphing data, as

Hi everyone: I am just wondering how can I use weights with MCMClogit function (in MCMCpack package). For example, in case of glm function as given below, there is weights option in the arguments. Aparently there is no option of using weights in MCMClogit. glm(formula, family = gaussian, data, weights, subset, na.action, start = NULL, etastart, mustart, offset, control =

Duncan Murdoch answered your question, but I have another. Are you going to do some computation with the rounded numbers, or are they just for display? (One thing I like about Excel is that I can change the display format of a cell without changing answers that depend on that cell.) In the latter case, why stash them in a variable? For more control of the display, consider sprintf (or a wrapper

Hello R Users, I am having difficulty deleting the last warning message in a loop so that the only warning that is produced is that from the most recent line of code. I have tried options(warn=1), rm(last.warning), and resetting the last.warning using something like: > warning("Resetting warning message") This problem has been addressed in a previous listserve string,

Hello, Is this a bug in codetools: > codetools::showTree( body( glm) ) ("{" (<- call (match.call)) (if (is.character family) (<- family (get family "function" (parent.frame)))) (if (is.function family) (<- family(family))) (if (is.null ($ family family)) ("{" (print family) (stop "'family' not recognized"))) (if (missing data)

df$LAP <- with(df, ifelse(G=='male', (WC-65)*TG, (WC-58)*TG)) That will do both calculations and merge the two vectors appropriately. It will use extra memory, but it should be much faster than a 'for' loop. Regards, Jorgen Harmse. ------------------------------ Message: 8 Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2023 11:10:49 +1030 From: "Md. Kamruzzaman" <mkzaman.m at gmail.com>

I think Bert Gunter is right, but do you want partial matches (not found by match), and how robust do you want the code to be? f <- function(?) { pos <- match('a', ...names()) if (is.na(pos)) stop("a is required.") ?elt(pos) } Incidentally, what is the best way to extract the expression without evaluating it? g <- function(...) { pos <-