On 28/04/2017 4:45 AM, Thierry Onkelinx wrote:
Dear Peter,
It actually breaks install.packages(). So it is not that innocent.
I don't think he meant that it is harmless, he meant that the fix is
easy, and is in place in R-patched and R-devel. You should use
R-patched and you won't have the problem.
More generally, there's a lot more variety of systems in the wild than
on our test machines, so we really do rely on people testing things in
the alpha/beta/rc phase. In this case we saw the error too late to fix
it (as I recall, it was very late in rc). If more people had tested, we
might have found it earlier.
Duncan Murdoch
Best regards,
Thierry
Op 28 apr. 2017 10:36 a.m. schreef "peter dalgaard" <pda...@gmail.com>:
Yes, we noticed this in the last days of the code freeze before release and
shied away from inserting a workaround, partly because we couldn't see what
the root of the problem might be.
For the purposes of installed.packages it is relatively harmless to treat
the NA condition as FALSE, since it is just a matter of whether a cache is
valid. I.e., it might cause an unnecessary cache rebuild. For other
situations it might be more of an issue.
The workaround (NA -> FALSE, basically) is in place in R-patched and
R-devel.
-pd
On 28 Apr 2017, at 07:47 , Thierry Onkelinx <thierry.onkel...@inbo.be>
wrote:
We have several computers with the same problem.
Op 28 apr. 2017 7:25 a.m. schreef "Jean-Claude Arbaut" <arbau...@gmail.com
:
Hello,
I am currently getting a strange error when I call installed.packages():
Error in if (file.exists(dest) && file.mtime(dest) > file.mtime(lib) && :
missing value where TRUE/FALSE needed
Calls: installed.packages
I am working with R 3.4.0 on Windows. I didn't get this error with R
3.3.3.
Apparently, file.mtime() is returning NA well applied to a directory, and
this causes the entire && expression to be NA, then the "if" fails because
it needs either T or F.
The source of "installed.packages" seems to be roughly the same as in R
3.3.3, so I wonder if there have been other changes in R, maybe the
logical
operators, that would make this function fail.
Any idea?
Best regards,
Jean-Claude Arbaut
[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
______________________________________________
R-help@r-project.org mailing list -- To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/
posting-guide.html
and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
______________________________________________
R-help@r-project.org mailing list -- To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/
posting-guide.html
and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
--
Peter Dalgaard, Professor,
Center for Statistics, Copenhagen Business School
Solbjerg Plads 3, 2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark
Phone: (+45)38153501
Office: A 4.23
Email: pd....@cbs.dk Priv: pda...@gmail.com
[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
______________________________________________
R-help@r-project.org mailing list -- To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
______________________________________________
R-help@r-project.org mailing list -- To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
