similar to: Problems with NA's

Dear list, I try to update the prabclus package. R CMD check works nicely, no warnings, good results in all tests. However, building the package fails: ginkgo:/disk5/home/chrish/RAusw/libsrc R CMD build prabclus * checking for file 'prabclus/DESCRIPTION' ... OK * preparing 'prabclus': * checking whether 'INDEX' is up-to-date ... OK * removing junk files * building

This is a semantic question. (I''m doing some technical writing about DTrace.) I''ll little confused about how to explain what an "action" is. By any definition, "trace(x);" is an action. However, what about just "i++;"? Looking at the DTrace guide page 76: "Probe actions are described by a list of statements separated by semicolons (;)

I am trying to do the simplest thing in the world. The following works: aaa <- ifelse(aaa==5, 6, 7) But if I want to change the if...else syntax instead, it gives errors and assigns 7 to aaa. Here is the problem code: aaa <- 5 if ( aaa==5 ) { aaa <- 6 } else { aaa <- 7 } Here is the output: > aaa <- 5 > if ( aaa==5

I'm trying to write a small function (below) to compute Box & Cox transformations of x for arbitrary values of lambda. I'd like to specify a range of values for lamba (min,max,step) and am having trouble getting the for loop to work. Suggestions? Any pointers to resources for learning to write functions in R for neophyte programmers? Thanks. --Dale boxcox <-

Hi everyone. We're interested in contributing a Hexagon assembler to MC and we're looking for comments on a good way to integrate the grammar in to the infrastructure. We rely on having a robust assembler because we have a large base of developers that write in assembly due to low power requirements for mobile devices. We put in some C-like concepts to make the syntax easier and this

06.11.2017 14:56, Robinson, Paul пишет: >> Hi everybody, >> As you know, Cuda/NVPTX target has very limited support of the debug >> info in Clang/LLVM. Currently, LLVM supports only emission of the line >> numbers debug info. >> This is caused by limitations of the Cuda/NVPTX codegen. Clang/LLVM >> translates the source code to LLVM IR, which is then lowered to

Hi everybody, As you know, Cuda/NVPTX target has very limited support of the debug info in Clang/LLVM. Currently, LLVM supports only emission of the line numbers debug info. This is caused by limitations of the Cuda/NVPTX codegen. Clang/LLVM translates the source code to LLVM IR, which is then lowered to PTX (parallel thread execution) intermediate file. This PTX file represents special kind of

Nobody blames ptxas. I'm not saying that these are the troubles, I'm just saying that it has some features and we have some problems to be solved. But lack of labels, label arithmetics in DWARF sections is the real problem, because LLVM actively uses it in DWARF sections Best regards, Alexey Bataev 8 нояб. 2017 г., в 5:35, Madhur Amilkanthwar <madhur13490 at

Ok I'm a little confused about realtime static. The wiki has the database schema but no explanation of what fields are for what. I would appreciate if someone can confirm or deny how I think the schema works. cat_metric = sort order for category var_metric = sort order for vars filename = equivalent .conf file in /etc/asterisk category = anything that would be enclosed in braces ([])

I'm getting an anomalous result from using the itemize command in a documentation file. My usage is something like \itemize{ \item Melvin \item Irving \item Clyde \item Fred } (This was place inside ``\details{ }''.) (Previously I had enclosed the text following each item in braces but that gave even worse results.) The package appears to install OK; i.e. the command R

hi, i lost half a day trying to figure out how r is parsing statements in multiple lines. can someone explain (or direct me to documentation) the following. consider the following statements in a program file, say foo.r: a <- 1 + 2; b <- {1 + 2}; {c <- 1 + 2}; d <- c(1, 2); if i do source("foo.r"), i get a=3, b=2, c=1, d={1,2}. according to the r language definition

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 13:48:43 -0400 (EDT), "Gabor Grothendieck" <ggrothendieck@myway.com> wrote : > >In R 1.9.0 on Windows XP Pro I get an error if I try to >debug the identity function f shown: > > > f <- function(x)x > > debug(f) > > f(1) > debugging in: f(1) > Error in f(1) : Unimplemented feature in eval > > R.version.string > [1]

I have used Sweave a lot the latest year, but never really used any long function calls. If I have code which look like this ------------------------------------------------------------- gof <- benthic.flux(ID="Gulf of Finland", meas.conc=conc, bw.conc=bw.conc, time=times,

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

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 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

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>

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- A few weeks ago I noticed that our "omit braces with single line blocks" rule wasn't written down! Additionally, as a group on IRC and in review, noticed that the enforcement of this rule has been extremely inconsistent. We made a first run at codifying our existing practice here: https://reviews.llvm.org/D80947, which was then committed after significant time on

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