similar to: Inspecting R functions

Given a matrix m, I would like to obtain a boxplot of the columns of m; in other words, boxplot(list(m[,1],...,m[,ncol(m)])). At the moment, I am using colpart <- function(m){ L <- list(rep(0,ncol(m))) for(i in 1:ncol(m)){ L[[i]] <- m[,i] } return(L)} boxplot(colpart(m)) for this purpose. Surely there must be a more eloquent way! Richard

I would like to label an x-axis with the nabla symbol. I have tried this with the following symbol escape sequence plot(1:5, 1:5, xlab=""); title(xlab="\\dl", vfont=c("serif symbol", "plain")) but I got the warning message parameter "vfont" couldn't be set in high-level plot() function Is it possible to use a symbol escape

Subject: Re: [LARTC] inspecting what''s going in a class Date: Monday 05 December 2005 09:38 From: "Ethy H. Brito" <ethy.brito@inexo.com.br> To: jasonb@edseek.com On Mon, 5 Dec 2005 00:59:46 -0500 Jason Boxman <jasonb@edseek.com> wrote: > > > Sadly not possible with tc-filter. But perhaps I could do this for tc > > > with Vincent Perrier''s

Hi there, in one of my templates I have the following code: <% for film in @artist.films %> <h3>films</h3> <p><%= link_to film.title, :controller => ''films'', :action => ''showfilm'', :animate_title => film.animate_title, :page => ''synopsis'' %></p> <% end %> however if I do: <%=

Encountered the following problem and would like to know if this is a known issue, whether there's a fix, or workaround: Using libguestfs and the python bindings to inspect VMs. Fairly successfully for the most part, but had one Windows image today that fails in the following manner. File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/guestfs.py", line 910, in inspect_os r =

> both dragonegg and clang (AFAIK) run some function passes on each function > in turn as they are turned into LLVM IR. If such a function pass tried to > inspect other functions then they won't be able to see all function bodies > because they haven't all been output yet. And which functions do have > bodies > available to be inspected depends on the order in which

Hi Stephen, On 05/07/13 17:14, Stephen Lin wrote: >> both dragonegg and clang (AFAIK) run some function passes on each function >> in turn as they are turned into LLVM IR. If such a function pass tried to >> inspect other functions then they won't be able to see all function bodies >> because they haven't all been output yet. And which functions do have >>

Hello, I'd like to look at the file properties of a win32 .dll file from Linux. I desire the entries that you normally see under the "Version" tab in the file's properties like: "Company", "File Version", "Internal Name". I suspect that there is nothing out there that is just a simple Linux program that does this, so that is why I am here.

I have a rather peculiar dataframe and I have problems at inspecting it (I'm working with R 2.3.0 on Win XP). Let say that example is a dataframe with two variables: "first" and "second"; now while "first" is a quite common numeric variable, second is a variable which contains a dataframe (this of course means that each element of "second" IS a

On 3 Jul 2013, at 23:05, Stephen Lin <swlin at post.harvard.edu> wrote: > Does anyone know if there's a defined policy about this, either way? > If so, I think it ought to be noted in the docs, for consistency. The prohibition exists, at least in part, because in theory it would be nice to be able to run passes in parallel. It's not a real limitation at the moment because

Hello everyone, Trying to comprehend code of an R package, I encountered the problem that the interesting part of the function I'm inspecting is written in C-Code and called by ".C("somename", ....)". Now I can't inspect the C-Code the function is calling since I can't find it in the folder of the package. Does someone know, where the corresponding C-Code ist

Hi Stephen, On 04/07/13 20:21, Stephen Lin wrote: > On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 1:45 AM, David Chisnall > <David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote: >> On 3 Jul 2013, at 23:05, Stephen Lin <swlin at post.harvard.edu> wrote: >> >>> Does anyone know if there's a defined policy about this, either way? >>> If so, I think it ought to be noted in the docs,

Hi Martin, On 1 January 2018 at 12:42, Martin J. O'Riordan via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Is there a general purpose way of accessing the current 'Triple' from any > where in the code so that I can add these checks? In many places, I can > access it via some argument to a function, or from a member of the class to > which the function belongs,

Is there some way of displaying the expression and evaluation environment associated with a promise? I have found the following: > # first run these two commands to set up example > e <- new.env() > delayedAssign("y", x*x, assign.env = e) > # method 1. shows expression but not evaluation environment > str(as.list(e)) List of 1 $ y: promise to language x * x >

Hi, I have a basic machine function pass in this fashion: bool Foo::runOnMachineFunction(MachineFunction &Fn) { for (auto &BB : Fn) { for (MachineBasicBlock::iterator I = BB.begin(), E = BB.end(); I != E; ++I) { if (I->isPseudo()) continue; // inspect opcode of I here } } } return true; } As the comment suggests I want to inspect the

Hi, I'm not planning on doing this, but I noticed that the documentation in WritingAnLLVMPass.rst doesn't seem to specify whether or not it's legal for a function pass to inspect (and thus depend upon the contents of) other functions and I'm curious if this is an oversight or by design: To be explicit, ``FunctionPass`` subclasses are not allowed to: #. Modify a

Hi LLVM-Devs, Sometimes when I am experimenting with a change for my out-of-tree target, I find that to get it working I have to make changes to the target-independent sources for LLVM. Generally I do not like to do this, but sometimes I have not been able to find a pure target-specific solution to the problem I am working on, and have to make these changes in the target-independent code. But

On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 1:45 AM, David Chisnall <David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote: > On 3 Jul 2013, at 23:05, Stephen Lin <swlin at post.harvard.edu> wrote: > >> Does anyone know if there's a defined policy about this, either way? >> If so, I think it ought to be noted in the docs, for consistency. > > The prohibition exists, at least in part, because in

Well, things seem to be going really well with tbf, prio and sfq. But I''m a nosey bugger. :-) I''d love to be able to audit what''s going through each of the prio bands. The super ideal solution would be to be able to attach tcpdump to each band and see what''s going through it with the benefit of tcpdump''s filtering so that I can examine and filter

There's always the hypothetical template<typename T> llvm::Triple giveMeATripleDamnYou(const T &); Just keep adding implementations until you stop needing to. ;-) Cheers. Tim. On 1 January 2018 at 17:00, Martin J. O'Riordan <MartinO at theheart.ie> wrote: > Thanks Tim, > > Sometimes my hacks last longer than I want as it isn't always apparent how I can