similar to: sprintf, check number of parameters

Dear Tomas,Thank you.Regarding the "unnumbered" arguments, i.e. sprintf('%f %f', 1, 2, 3). This was the case I wanted to report, here a warning can be very useful.Regarding the "numbered" arguments, that is, sprintf('%$1f %$3f', 1, 2, 3). Here, omission of an argument might be intended, for example, in an application with support for multiple languages.

Dear Matthias, On 11/4/20 4:01 PM, matthias-gondan wrote: > Dear Tomas, > > Thank you. > > Regarding the "unnumbered" arguments, i.e. sprintf('%f %f', 1, 2, 3). > This was the case I wanted to report, here a warning can be very useful. > > Regarding the "numbered" arguments, that is, sprintf('%$1f %$3f', 1, > 2, 3). Here, omission

Dear Matthias, thanks for the suggestion, R-devel now warns on unused arguments by format (both numbered and un-numbered). It seems that the new warning is useful, often it finds cases when arguments were accidentally passed to sprintf but had been meant for a different function. R allows combining both numbered and un-numbered references in a single format, even though it may be better to

Another way to avoid the problem is to not redefine variables that are arguments. E.g., > Su3 <- function(u=100, l=u, mu=0.53, sigma2=4.3^2, verbose) { if (verbose) { print(c(u, l, mu)) } uNormalized <- u/sqrt(sigma2) lNormalized <- l/sqrt(sigma2) muNormalized <- mu/sqrt(sigma2) c(uNormalized, lNormalized, muNormalized) } > Su3(verbose=TRUE)

Dear R developers, sessionInfo() below Please have a look at the following two versions of the same function: 1. Intended behavior: > Su1 = function(u=100, l=u, mu=0.53, sigma2=4.3^2) + { + print(c(u, l, mu)) # here, l is set to u?s value + u = u/sqrt(sigma2) + l = l/sqrt(sigma2) + mu = mu/sqrt(sigma2) + print(c(u, l, mu)) + } > > Su1() [1] 100.00 100.00 0.53 [1]

Dear Bill, All makes perfect sense (including the late evaluation). I actually discovered the problem by looking at old code which used your proposed solution. Still I find it strange (and, hnestly, I don?t like R?s behavior in this respect), and I am wondering why u is not being copied to L just before u is assigned a new value. Of course, this would require the R interpreter to track all these

Dear R developers, The following command produces an interaction plot with lwd=2. interaction.plot(c(1, 2, 1, 2), c(1, 1, 2, 2), 1:4, lwd=2) In the legend, however, lwd seems to be 1, which does not seem to be intended behavior. Probably the lwd is not correctly forwarded to legend: from the interaction.plot source: legend(xleg, yleg, legend = ylabs, col = col, pch = if (type %in%

Dear R-user Suppose I have the following data y=c(2,1,5,8,11,3,1,7,50,21,33,7,60) x=data.frame(y) for(i in 4:nrow(x)) x[i,] =var(x[i-3:i-1,]) I'm trying to get a new variable with the variance of the 3 previous values (just an example) and with NA in the three first positions. I know that my for() is wrong but I'm not able to find my error. Any idea? Thanks, Marlene.

Dear R developers, I would like to have R choose the limits of the y-axis semi-automatically, e.g., zero should be included, but the maximum should be chosen depending on the data. Examples: plot(1:10, 1:10) # selects min and max automatically plot(1:10, 1:10, ylim=c(1, 10)) # manual definition plot(1:10, 1:10, ylim=c(0, Inf)) # this would be a nice feature, i.e. lower y limit = 0 defined

This is a follow-up to a query that was posted regarding some problems that emerge when running anova analyses for cox models, posted by Mathias Gondan: Matthias Gondan wrote: >* Dear List,*>**>* I have tried a stratified Cox Regression, it is working fine, except for*>* the "Anova"-Tests:*>**>* Here the commands (should work out of the box):*>**>*

-------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: Gildas Mazo <gildas.mazo at curie.fr> Subject: Re: [R] optimization subject to constraints Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 15:49:19 +0200 Size: 4924 URL: <https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-help/attachments/20100810/78862894/attachment.eml>

On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 5:01 PM Tomas Kalibera <tomas.kalibera at gmail.com> wrote: [...] > Do you have a good use case when it would be useful to query/unset the > mark for debugonce? Well, I suppose the same use cases when it is useful to query/unset the other debug mark. To be more specific, in debug helpers for a tool that works with callbacks from a central event loop, it is

Dear R experts, For a fixed seed, the first random number produced by rnorm and runif has the same rank within the distribution, which I find useful. The following ranks differ, however. > set.seed(123) > runif(4) [1] *0.2875775* 0.7883051 *0.4089769* 0.8830174 > set.seed(123) > pnorm(rnorm(4)) [1] 0.2875775 0.4089769 0.9404673 0.5281055 I noticed that rnorm seems to

Hello, One way of preventing that is to use ?force. Just put force(l) right after the commented out print and before you change 'u'. Hope this helps, Rui Barradas Citando Matthias Gondan <matthias-gondan at gmx.de>: > Dear R developers, > > sessionInfo() below > > Please have a look at the following two versions of the same function: > > 1. Intended

My interpretation of the relation between 1-way ANOVA and Wilcoxon's test (wilcox.test() in R) is the following. 1-way ANOVA is to test if two or multiple distributions are the same, assuming all the distributions are normal and have equal variances. Wilcoxon's test is to test two distributions are the same without assuming what their distributions are. In this sense, I'm wondering

Dear list, Is anyone aware of a library for sample size calculation in R, similar to NQuery? I have to give a course in this area, and I would like to enable the students playing around with this. Best wishes, Matthias

Dear list, Apparently, there is no function like sscanf in R. I have a string, "Condition: 311", and I would like to read out the number and store it to a numeric variable. Is there an easy way to do this? Best wishes, Matthias --

Dear R-Users, Is anyone aware of a significance test which allows demonstrating that one distribution dominates another? Let F(t) and G(t) be two distribution functions, the alternative hypothesis would be something like: F(t) >= G(t), for all t null hypothesis: F(t) < G(t), for some t. Best wishes, Matthias PS. This one would be ok, as well: F(t) > G(t), for all t null

Dear R developers, A great R feature is that elements of vectors, lists and dataframes can have names: vx = c(a=1, b=2) lx = list(a=1, b=2) Accessing element "a" of vx: vx['a'] Accessing element "a" of lx: lx[['a']] or lx$a Might be a matter of taste, but I like the $ very much. Unfortunately, vx$a is not functional. Would it break existing compatibility

Dear List, I am aware this is slightly off-topic, but I am sure there are people who already had the problem and who perhaps solved it. I am running long-lasting model fits using constrOptim command. At work there is a linux computer (Quad Core, debian) on which I already have compiled R and Atlas, in the hope that things will go faster on that machine. Atlas offers the possibility to be