Glad we know where the problem lies now. Dimitri On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 11:55 AM, Terry Therneau <thern...@mayo.edu> wrote: > It is likely a problem with survival, since > 2.9 merged in a large number of changes that had occured in my source > tree that had not propogated to the R tree > > my test suite doesn't have a test for this particular case (2 factors) > > and - Murphy's law applies: although almost every possible case is > covered in the test suite, any new error will hit an omitted combination of > options with high probability. > > I won't get to it for a few days though. As with other errors it will result > in both a fix and an addition to the test suite. > > Thank you for a clear explanation of the problem. > > Terry T. > > > Dieter Menne wrote: > "Make sure that this is really a problem with different versions of R, > not a problem of different versions of survival which was changed recently, > without backward compatibility, so that for example many function of > Design (Harrell) do not work currently." > > The comment about backwards compatability is a little unfair. The code for > survival curves post Cox model finally added the (long requested) ability to > accomodate case weights. This added an argument to a C routine. The Design > package called my C routine directly. I was not aware of this, there is no > promise in any R package that the not-meant-to-be-called-by-others C routines > won't change, Frank H was told about this as soon as we found out, and he's > working on it. > > > >
-- Dimitri Liakhovitski MarketTools, Inc. dimitri.liakhovit...@markettools.com ______________________________________________ R-help@r-project.org mailing list 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.
