On 2/16/2007 9:35 AM, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
I mentioned this twice already and no one answered;however, I am mentioning
this a third time since its a serious deficiency.
I agree this would be a reasonable addition, but I wouldn't class it as
a serious deficiency, and I don't plan to
I think its best if core mods are done by the core group while others
focus on work that can be done external to the core.
Thus, what I have done is to enhance the batchfiles distribution with
3 new batchfiles: Rscript.bat, #Rscript.bat and runR.bat which will be
part of the
next distribution of
On 2/17/2007 7:31 AM, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
I think its best if core mods are done by the core group while others
focus on work that can be done external to the core.
Fair enough, but then you also have to accept that the core group is
going to set the priorities. As far as I know
Surely R has higher standards than that. How about quality and
completeness of implementation?
Every other major scripting language has implemented this for good reason
and its a glaring omission.
On 2/17/07, Duncan Murdoch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/17/2007 7:31 AM, Gabor Grothendieck
Surely R has higher standards than that. How about quality and
completeness of implementation?
Every other major scripting language has implemented this for good
reason and its a glaring omission.
Gabor, can we get a URL from you to a patch that implements this
functionality?
Thanks!
On Sat, 2007-02-17 at 09:31 -0500, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
Surely R has higher standards than that. How about quality and
completeness of implementation?
Every other major scripting language has implemented this for good reason
and its a glaring omission.
I think you are forgetting that
Just because its open source does not mean everyone should do everything.
I suspect I have more expertise in Windows batch than the core developers
and also suspect they have more knowledge of the core than I so its a
good division of labor if I provide the batch files and they add -x
since it
I have developed a package, bayesm, which uses existing classes of
objects. I would like
to add a new class corresponding to objects from this package.
I have been reading about classes and all sources tell me that I should
use
so-called new or S4 classes.
However, a major purpose of defining
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007, Rossi, Peter E. wrote:
I have developed a package, bayesm, which uses existing classes of
objects. I would like to add a new class corresponding to objects from
this package.
I have been reading about classes and all sources tell me that I should
use so-called new
On 2/17/2007 10:57 AM, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
[ deletions ]
Also I think that the success of R in the community is such that the core
developers do have some responsibility to the community at large beyond
their own needs.
I'd agree with this, as long as you don't limit it to the core
Rossi, Peter E. wrote:
I have developed a package, bayesm, which uses existing classes of
objects. I would like
to add a new class corresponding to objects from this package.
I have been reading about classes and all sources tell me that I should
use
so-called new or S4 classes.
11 matches
Mail list logo
