similar to: R - lme

Dear R user, I am trying to reproduce the results in Montgomery D.C (2001, chap 13, example 13-1). Briefly, there are three suppliers, four batches nested within suppliers and three determinations of purity (response variable) on each batch. It is a two stage nested design, where suppliers are fixed and batches are random. y_ijk=mu+tau_i+beta_j(nested in tau_i)+epsilon_ijk Here are the

Dear R user, I am trying to reproduce the results in Montgomery D.C (2001, chap 13, example 13-1). Briefly, there are three suppliers, four batches nested within suppliers and three determinations of purity (response variable) on each batch. It is a two stage nested design, where suppliers are fixed and batches are random. y_ijk=mu+tau_i+beta_j(nested in tau_i)+epsilon_ijk Here are the

Dear Prof. Ripley and Christoph, thank you very much for your comments. You have helped me a lot. Thanks, Tomas Goicoa >Dear Prof. Ripley > >Thank you for your email. Yes, this is of course the correct >syntax to save us the extra calculation. And I forgot the >"lower.tail = FALSE" for pf() in my example to obtain the >p-value. > >Thank you for the

Hi, I'm writing an AGI script to manage outgoing calls. We need to interrogate a database to work out which line a particular user is allowed to use for outgoing calls. However, I cannot find a way for my AGI script to access the SIP username. Does anyone know if this is possible (even if it is just passing a variable from extensions.conf to the script)? Thanks in advance, David

I appreciate the well-thought-out comments. To your first point, I am not sure what "glattering" means precisely (a Google search revealed nothing useful), but I assume it means something to the effect of overfilling the main namespace with too many names. Per Norm Matloff's counterpoint in The Art of R Programming regarding this issue, this is mostly avoided by well-defined,

On May 7, 2012, at 8:07 AM, Lyu Mitnick <mitnick.lyu at gmail.com> wrote: > Hello all, > > I am willing to do "eliminating the void type" project. Is this really a good idea? I'm not going to argue at length about it, but it is worth thinking about. The only practical downsides of void are when newcomers take C's syntax for functions with no arguments a little

On Jun 1, 2012, at 7:41 PM, Justin Holewinski wrote: > > > > Unfortunately, the use of outs() and (especially) errs() is rampant - a simple grep of the 3.1 source tree shows about 1,500 instances. One of the first things we had to implement in order to make LLVM usable is something very similar to what Justin has proposed. Centralizing control of the output in outs()/errs() would

Tf-idf is most used used weighting scheme is easy to understand and has been used in other frameworks like lucene and many other places. okapi bm25(implemented in xapian) is theoretically better/improved measure than tf-idf and i am looking into various other weighting scheme which are there in xapian or can be implemented like TF-ICF(term frequecy inverse corpus frequency),TF-RF(term

I have another round of questions about IR select canonicalizations. For the purity of this quiz, please disregard prior knowledge of how this is handled by instcombine or how this is lowered by your favorite target...of course we'll fix it. :) Some answers in the links below if you do want to know. Which, if any, of these is canonical? 1. Is a zext simpler than a select? a. define i32

On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 10:17 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On Jun 1, 2012, at 7:41 PM, Justin Holewinski wrote: > > > >> > Unfortunately, the use of outs() and (especially) errs() is rampant - a >> simple grep of the 3.1 source tree shows about 1,500 instances. One of the >> first things we had to implement in order to make LLVM

I am not in favor of the change, which is a choice of rigor over usability. When I am developing code or functions I agree with this, and I view any warnings from R CMD check about shortened arguments as positive feedback. But 90% of my usage of R is day to day data analysis, interactive, at the keyboard. A lot of data sets that come to me have long variable names. What this change will mean

Hi Suman, I think you can ascertain pureness automatically leveraging the compiler instead of manually tagging attribute to each method and call-site. It would seem like impurity should be a transitive attribute. So this would conflict with below. __attribute__((annotate("pure"))) int add(uint32_t a, uint32_t b) { // impure by calling printf... ... printf("%d + %d =

The point is, that there are several possible problems. But. One the one hand they are not really problematic in my opinion (I do not care if my function has potential access to objects outside of its environment because this access is read-only at worst and it's not common practice to use this potential anyways). On the other hand I am not sure what the main()-idiom would actually add to

I've read the back and forth this morning, and I have to side with Vince. 1. Functions that re-interpret their arguments are very dangerous. The original question involved a well formed call to a function, which returned the wrong answer. Bug, design flaw, whatever -- it's a mistake and the best choice would be to fix it. I only consider such behavior in 2 cases: a. when the

> > Yes, you can "police" these things as a sysadmin. How? Use > /usr/proc/bin/ptree, ps, lsof and what not to find all sshd > processes and their associated ptys - the sshds that have no > children processes but whose master pty's slave pty still has > processes associated with said pty, those are the sshds that must be > killed in order to clean up (or you

On Jun 1, 2012, at 11:13 PM, Justin Holewinski wrote: >> In a way, they are. What if I want a debug trace in a multi-threaded context? Right now, all threads would just spew to the same stream and the result would be unreadable. If you allow threads to setup their own outs() and errs() streams (transparently to the rest of LLVM), you can intercept these as you see fit, perhaps dumping

On my Mac: str(.Machine) ... $ integer.max????????? : int 2147483647 ?$ sizeof.long????????? : int 8 ?$ sizeof.longlong????? : int 8 ?$ sizeof.longdouble??? : int 16 ?$ sizeof.pointer?????? : int 8 ????? On a Windows 10 machine I have, $ sizeof.long : int 4; otherwise the same as on my Mac. ????? Am I correct that $ sizeof.long = 4 means 4 bytes = 32 bits? log2(.Machine$integer.max)

Hi, I think we are overloading the Layout references for garbage collection. If you are creating a reference (kindLayoutAfter) from A to B, that may not mean that you cannot garbage collect B for the end user. My thought on Layout references was that it only guarantees that atoms appear in Layout reference order. Why are we overloading this for Garbage collection (aside from saving space/code)

I just noticed that two key pieces of information are not given by the summary() command: N and SD. we are given the N missing, but not the converse. I know these summary value can be obtained easy, but can't understand why these two pieces of information are not provided with the other info. Thanks, Gerard

Hello all, I am willing to do "eliminating the void type" project. Is there anyone working on it? === Overview === The general concept is to replaced void with {}. And 'ret void' is a synonym of 'ret {} {}.' === Further Implementation Details === 1. Deleting VoidTyID 2. Deleting LLVMVoidTypeKind (one-to-one relation between VoidTyID and LLVMVoidTypeKind) 3. Use