similar to: Brace highlighting in R for the PC?

I have sort of an emergency question for the list. One of my professors for an S-Plus intensive class distributed a function to produce partial regression plots. I need to run it under R, because I'm doing the homework on my home computer with a modem; hence I don't have the speed required to emulate X-Windows and run S Plus off one of the campus servers. Bottom line: I'm using R.

I'd like to make axis titles, chart titles, legends and the like mathematically nice (e.g., have proper superscripts and subscripts, variables in italics, and so on). Ideally, one could go into ``math mode" a la LaTeX, and write something like plot(blah, xlab="Methane in $\mbox{cm}^3$ / g", blah). This is just an ideal, but it would be nice. Is some approximation of this

Hey everyone, What am I doing wrong? I loaded the MASS package with library(MASS), and now when I type library() I get > library() Packages in library `F:\r\rw0651/library': MASS Main Library of Venables and Ripley's MASS base The R base package . . . That's fine. The problem is that when I try to use a function that I know is built

Potentially Stupid Question Department: I just tried to load a few packages in a row. First I loaded MASS, then tseries, then nls. A typical error message from the last two looked like this: Attaching Package "package:nls": The following object(s) are masked from package:MASS : profile Is this a big deal? Does it mean that I lose any functionality from the

Hello, I recall reading a thread months ago on this mailing list about handling very datasets under R, but I can't seem to find it. This has become particularly important recently, because I've been playing with a dataset containing information about every fatal car accident in the U.S. since 1975; in total, the relevant files are about 120 megs. I'd like to load all of these into R

Hi, the proposed fix for CVE-2019-6111 [1] adds file name validation to scp to prevent the server from sending files that the client actually did not request. Now, a consequence of that patch is that commands which contain server-side brace expansions such as $ scp remote:'/etc/{passwd,group}' . error: unexpected filename: passwd no longer work. Shell globs such as [abc], ?, *,

Let me show you the following simple C code: int main() { int i; for (i = 0; i < 256; i++) { i++; } } In this simple C code, if we use Clang to compile it and debug it: We will get something like this: (gdb) b main Breakpoint 1 at 0x100000f7b: file a.c, line 5. (gdb) r Starting program: a.out [New Thread 0x1403 of process 23435] warning: unhandled dyld version (15) Thread 2

Hi paulr: Thanks for your kindly response. Maybe I don't describe my question cleanly, let me show more information. From my side, I notice that whether we are in the continue keyword mode or we are in the right brace mode, the target of br instruction is the same, i.e. for loop Continue Keyword Mode: ; <label>:6: ; preds = %3 br label

If we had a very naïve way of generating IR, in the 'continue' case you would actually see TWO branch instructions: one to implement the 'continue' statement, and one as part of the control flow of the 'for' loop. The branch for the 'continue' statement would have the source location of the 'continue' and the branch for the control-flow of the 'for'

I'll note that reading along I haven't found any of the proposed changes particularly worthwhile.  I'm also not strongly opposed to any of them - I just don't care - but I certainly haven't been convinced there's any clear benefit to be had by changing our current policy. Philip On 6/22/20 1:44 PM, Chris Lattner via llvm-dev wrote: > For those who don’t like it, is

On Tue, 23 Jun 2020 at 03:30, Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 2:38 PM Steve Scalpone via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> Me? I would modify the first sentence from: >> >> > When writing the body of an if, else, or loop statement, >> > omit the braces to avoid unnecessary

My 2 pennies is braces add unnecessary clutter and impair readability when used on a *single-line* statement. I count comments, that are on their own line as statement(s). For example: BAD: if (cond) // Comment foo(); GOOD: if (cond) { // Comment foo(); } BAD: if (cond) { foo(); // Comment } GOOD: if (cond) foo(); // Comment BAD: if (cond) for(;;) foo() GOOD: if (cond)

Did this conversation reach a conclusion? My ad hoc tally says that a slight majority of the responders preferred to fully brace statements and no one wanted to totally eliminate braces. The technical arguments for fully braced statements were 1) it's considered a slightly safer coding style and 2) commit diffs with fully braced statements may be slightly more to the point. I didn't

I'm with Matt on this one. I much prefer the approach of ALWAYS use braces for ifs and for loops, even if they're not needed, for basically the same reasons as he put. The number of times I've added a statement inside an if without braces and forget to add them is annoyingly high, especially as it's not always an obvious error upfront. Similarly, being involved in a downstream

Hi all, Does anyone know a solution for this error ? > tkwidget(dlg, "iwidgets::spinint", range="{0 23}") Error in structure(.External("dotTclObjv", objv, PACKAGE = "tcltk"), class = "tclObj") : [tcl] wrong # args: should be ".31.1.19 configure -range {begin end}". Thanks, Matthew [[alternative HTML version

Me? I would modify the first sentence from: > When writing the body of an if, else, or loop statement, > omit the braces to avoid unnecessary line noise. However, > braces should be used in cases where the omission of braces > harm the readability and maintainability of the code. To be: > Braces are optional around the body of an if, else, or loop statement, > except in cases

On 6/23/20 9:39 AM, Robinson, Paul via llvm-dev wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> On Behalf Of Jay Foad via >> llvm-dev >> Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2020 4:47 AM >> To: Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> >> Cc: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org; Matt Arsenault <arsenm2 at gmail.com>

Hi there, I'm using R1.0.1 Windows 98. This file contains some inputs and an aov function code. Can someone check it for me? Somehow I got completely different answer when typing them in R and in Splus. Splus gives me this: > summary( Turnip.aov ) Error: Blocks Df Sum of Sq Mean Sq F Value Pr(F) Residuals 3 163.7367 54.57891 Error: Plots %in% Blocks

On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 2:37 AM Chris Lattner via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On Jun 23, 2020, at 11:02 AM, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com> > wrote: > > I'll note that reading along I haven't found any of the proposed changes > particularly worthwhile. I'm also not strongly opposed to any of them - I > just don't care

Matt Arsenault via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes: > I think braces should be added in all contexts, and the more contexts > the better. It eliminates any inconsistency or attempt to contextually > interpret rules. It also reduces merge conflicts, since something > eventually something will probably be added inside any control flow > statement. I’ve suffered