similar to: S4 classes: referencing slots with other slots

Dear Development Group, In trying to answer the subject question myself, I found this thread initiated by Tony from five years ago: http://tolstoy.newcastle.edu.au/R/help/05/12/18169.html. I recently stumbled upon the following S4 answer to Tony's question: setClass("fooWfcn", representation(dat1="vector", dat2="vector",

Happy 2013! Can someone with more knowledge of edge case scoping/eval rules explain what is happening below? Happens in all the versions of R I have on hand. Behavior itself is confusing, but ?as.environment also provides no clue. The term used in that doc is 'search list', which is ambiguous, but the see also section mentions search(), so I would *think* that is what is intended.

Full_Name: James Signorovitch Version: 2.2.1 OS: WinXP Submission from: (NULL) (134.174.182.203) In the code below, fn1() and fn2() fail with the messages given in the comments. Strangely, fn2() fails for all data sets I've tried except for those with 100 rows. The same errors occur if glm() is used in place of lm(), or if R 2.1.1 is used on a unix system. Thanks for looking into this.

Dear List, I've been looking tirelessly for a solution to this dilemma but without success. Perhaps someone has an idea that will guide me in the right direction. Suppose I have the following data.frame: DF = data.frame(X = c(114.5508, 114.6468, 114.6596, 114.6957, 114.6828, 114.8903, 114.9519, 114.8842, 114.8579, 114.8489), Y = c(47.14094, 46.98874, 46.91235, 46.88265, 46.80584, 46.67022,

On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 1:30 PM Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> wrote: On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 11:38 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 11:26 AM Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> wrote: Trying to wrap my brain around this, so a few questions below. =) Sure thing - sorry, did assume a bit too much arcane context here.

On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 2:08 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 1:30 PM Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> > wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 11:38 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 11:26 AM Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> > wrote: >

On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 4:17 PM Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 2:08 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 1:30 PM Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> > wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 11:38 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > On

On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 4:20 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 4:17 PM Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> > wrote: > >> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 2:08 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 1:30 PM Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com>

Dear all, I would really appreciate if somebody can help me to understand what does the phrase "Vectorize your function" mean? And what is the job of Vectorize() function in doing that? I have read many threads where experts suggest to Vectorize the function, which will speed up entire calculation (and more elegant ofcourse.) I used to think that vectorizing function means, to create a

Hi, > Suppose I have the following source: > > file1: > #include "file2" > #include "file3" > int fn1(void) ... > > file2: > int a; > > file3: > int fn2(void) ... > > then fn1, along with all the base types etc appear to be in compile unit > "file1", the variable a appears to be in compile unit

I have a question about the llvm debugging records, especially wrt compile units. In the non-LLVM sense, a compile unit is essentially everything contained within a single .o file, and it is derived from one or more source and header files. Included in a compile unit are functions and global data. Dwarf records refer to compile units in the same way: a compile unit record has children which

On Aug 22, 2008, at 4:40 PM, Devang Patel wrote: > The LLVM passes are responsible to take appropriate actions based on > Function > Notes associated with function definition. For example, > > define void @fn1() notes("opt-size=1") { ... } > > The function fn1() is being optimized for size without losing > significant > performance. The inliner will

All, I'm working on an improvement to the inline cost model, but I'm unsure how to proceed. Let me begin by first describing the problem I'm trying to solve. Consider the following pseudo C code: *typedef struct element { unsigned idx; } element_t; * *static inline unsigned char fn2 (element_t *dst_ptr, const element_t *a_ptr, const element_t *b_ptr,

Below is an example of output that changed as a result of r64970. I did not see any NEWS item suggesting this change is expected. Note that the example is contrived and I don't have a use case for it. I stumbled across it when playing with recent changes in R relating to duplication. Does the example use undefined syntax? ----- fn1 <- function(mylist) { fn1a <- function()

On 8/4/2017 2:06 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote: > A few notes: > I'm a bit surprised IPO copy/constant propagation doesn't get this > case, but i didn't look if the lattice supports variables. > In particular, in your example, given no other call sites, it should > eliminate the dead code. > (In a real program, it may require cloning). In the actual program

Here is a proposal that I mentioned sometime ago. Any thoughts,comments or suggestions on this proposal would be appreciated. - Devang // = = =---------------------------------------------------------------------- ===// // Function Notes (or Traits) // = = =---------------------------------------------------------------------- ===// This document describes the

Hi, Coincidentally I've been working to optimize this same case last week. I was struggling a bit to determine where to put this functionality and eventually went for the pragmatic approach of creating an experimental pass. Probably not the eventual solution, but it may provide some useful input to the discussion here. Basically, I experimented with a 'pre-inlining-transform' pass

Dear R users, I am new in R and I want to use the nls package to analyze some experimental data. The data is in the attached file "data". It is the response "Sav" measured at different "C0". Basically, the "C0" is a function of C1, K2, and r, and the "Sav" is a function of C0, C1, K2, and r. The math equations are shown in the attached

Hi all, we have encountered a case of redundant copies still left in the final code and we would like to, at least, mitigate it. The original motivating case comes from a context where we have large vector registers. In that context, copies are expensive and we would like to avoid them as much as possible. This small testcase in C, similar to the original vector case, exposes the issue but using

I am trying to use apply and a list to supply names to a set of tables I want to generate. Below is an example that I hope mimics the larger original problem. EXAMPLE aa <- c( 2,2,1,1,2) bb <- c(5,6,6,7,4) aan <- c("yes", "no") bbn <- c("a", "b", "c", "d") mynames <- c("abby", "billy") mylist <-