Re: [Rd] Bug in file.access on Windows when using network shares

Dear Nick, thank you for your report. In general one cannot know reliably in advance whether reading a file will work, if nothing else, there are possible race conditions with other applications and/or the system (e.g. a service may lock the file, move it away temporarily, etc). The only

Re: [Rd] base::mean not consistent about NA/NaN

Thank you for interesting examples. I would find useful to document this behavior also in `?mean`, while `+` operator is also affected, the `sum` function is not. For mean, NA / NaN could be handled in loop in summary.c. I assume that performance penalty of fix is the reason why this inconsistency

Re: [Rd] base::mean not consistent about NA/NaN

On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 10:12 AM, Jan Gorecki wrote: > Thank you for interesting examples. > I would find useful to document this behavior also in `?mean`, while `+` > operator is also affected, the `sum` function is not. `sum` is "affected" on my system, if you mean: > sum(c(NA,NaN)) [1] NA >

Re: [Rd] Bug in file.access on Windows when using network shares

Dear Tomas, Thanks for your email. This can be easily reproduced if there is access to a shared folder. I've reproduced this behaviour on both Windows 7 and Windows 10. Steps to reproduce: 1. Ensure Offline Files is turned on within Windows 2. Using Windows Explorer, browse to a folder shared

[Rd] Inconsistencies when extracting with non-integer numeric indices near zero

Dear R-devel, When I was playing around with different kind of indices when subsetting I noticed some unexpected behaviours when using non-integer numeric indices, especially near zero. From the docs: “Numeric values are coerced to integer as by

Re: [R-pkg-devel] Errors from Suggests or Enhances not in mainstream repositories

On 02/07/2018 4:18 PM, Throm, Allison wrote: Hi all, I'm trying to submit a package to the CRAN that further examines results from the "citrus" package as done for an accepted publication (available on Github: ). I do not get any errors when using

Re: [R-pkg-devel] Errors from Suggests or Enhances not in mainstream repositories

On 02/07/2018 6:13 PM, Ben Bolker wrote: I got something similar. I have a few thoughts: (1) you should use "if (require(citrus)) { ... }" in your examples; "Suggests" and "Enhances" packages are supposed to be *optional*, i.e. examples and tests should be able to run even if they're not

Re: [R-pkg-devel] Errors from Suggests or Enhances not in mainstream repositories

On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 5:57 AM, Duncan Murdoch wrote: > On 02/07/2018 6:13 PM, Ben Bolker wrote: >> >> I got something similar. I have a few thoughts: >> >> (1) you should use "if (require(citrus)) { ... }" in your examples; >> "Suggests" and "Enhances" packages are supposed to be *optional*,

Re: [Bioc-devel] About Adding SSH Keys to GitHub Account

Please be sure to 'reply all' so that others in similar situations can benefit. If you incremented the version but the single package builder did not start a build, the most likely reason is because the webhook is not correct. See

Re: [Bioc-devel] Bioconductor package update

Dear Martin, Thank you for your answer. I updated the man/ files and bumped the version in the DESCRIPTION file yesterday, but the change is not reflected in the manual of the package. Ahrim On 6/30/18, 11:32 AM, "Martin Morgan" wrote: >(cc'ing bioc-devel, where questions like this should be

Re: [Bioc-devel] Bioconductor package update

Hi Ahrim, I forget exactly when the nightly build/check reports occur for Bioconductor packages but looking at the BiFET report: (BiFET: http://bioconductor.org/checkResults/devel/bioc-LATEST/BiFET/) it looks like the build for June 2nd has not yet been updated? So any changes you made on June

Re: [Bioc-devel] Bioconductor package update

Apologies, I meant to say July 2nd, not June 2nd. On 7/3/18, 11:03 AM, "Nathan Lawlor" wrote: >Hi Ahrim, > >I forget exactly when the nightly build/check reports occur for >Bioconductor packages but looking at the BiFET report: (BiFET: