Re: [Rd] Behavior of seq_along (was: Create a new var reflecting the order of subjects in existing var)

2007-04-02 Thread Gabor Grothendieck
Good point. I tried it on "R version 2.5.0 Under development (unstable) (2007-02-25 r40804)" under Windows XP and both the seq_along and function(x) seq_along(x) versions worked without error, as well. So it seems this was a bug in 2.4.1 that is fixed in 2.5.0 . On 4/3/07, Benilton Carvalho <[

Re: [Rd] Behavior of seq_along (was: Create a new var reflecting the order of subjects in existing var)

2007-04-02 Thread Benilton Carvalho
I'm not sure what your sessionInfo() is, but take a look at what I got: > set.seed(123) > dat <- data.frame(ID= c(rep(1,2),rep(2,3), rep(3,3), rep(4,4), +rep(5,5)), var1 =rnorm(17, 35,2), var2=runif(17,0,1)) > dat ID var1 var2 1 1 33.87905 0.02461368 2 1 34.53965 0.4777959

[Rd] Behavior of seq_along (was: Create a new var reflecting the order of subjects in existing var)

2007-04-02 Thread Gabor Grothendieck
I am moving this from r-help to r-devel. Based on offline communications with Jim, suppose dat is defined as follows: set.seed(123) dat <- data.frame(ID= c(rep(1,2),rep(2,3), rep(3,3), rep(4,4), rep(5,5)), var1 =rnorm(17, 35,2), var2=runif(17,0,1)) # Then this ave call works as expected: ave

Re: [Rd] R callbacks

2007-04-02 Thread Byron Ellis
Hi Deepayan, IIRC Rf_initialize_R sets up the pointers so ptr_R_WriteConsole is just being overwritten by the original. You want to do it between initialization and the mainloop On 4/2/07, Deepayan Sarkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > I'm trying to understand (mostly from the R-exts manual

[Rd] R callbacks

2007-04-02 Thread Deepayan Sarkar
Hi, I'm trying to understand (mostly from the R-exts manual) how to use the callbacks declared in Rinterface.h. As a first attempt, I'm trying to redefine ptr_R_WriteConsole in a very trivial manner. Here's my code: --- $ cat altr.c int Rf_initialize_R(int ac, char **av); #define R_

Re: [Rd] Developer work cycle

2007-04-02 Thread Tony Plate
I tried to summarize some of the very useful tips in this discussion in the R Wiki at http://wiki.r-project.org/rwiki/doku.php?id=developers:workcycle If you feel I used your contribution inappropriately, please let me know and I'll remove it. Anyone, please feel free to improve it! -- Tony P

Re: [Rd] Matrix package: compilation error

2007-04-02 Thread Hin-Tak Leung
Rainer Hurling wrote: > Thank you Hin-Tak Leung, > > on Saturday, 31th, Brian Ripley and Martin Maechler showed me the use of > gmake without linking make against gmake: > > setenv MAKE gmake > R CMD INSTALL Matrix_0.9975-11.tar.gz > unsetenv MAKE > R CMD INSTALL spdep_0.4-2.tar.gz > >

Re: [Rd] Matrix package: compilation error

2007-04-02 Thread Rainer Hurling
Thank you Hin-Tak Leung, on Saturday, 31th, Brian Ripley and Martin Maechler showed me the use of gmake without linking make against gmake: setenv MAKE gmake R CMD INSTALL Matrix_0.9975-11.tar.gz unsetenv MAKE R CMD INSTALL spdep_0.4-2.tar.gz Everything works fine now. However, on m

[Rd] Problem with S4 inheritance: unexpected re-initialization?

2007-04-02 Thread cstrato
Dear S4 experts, Since I was reminded that I posted a similar question some time ago, I am attaching a modified version of my demo package, which allows me to track what happens during initialization of the following similar subclasses: SubSubClassA <- SubClassB <- BaseClass SubSubClassB <- S

Re: [Rd] Matrix package: compilation error

2007-04-02 Thread Hin-Tak Leung
Rainer Hurling wrote: > Thanks, Brian and Martin, > > I think you are both right, Matrix tries to use BSD make (/usr/bin/make) > on FreeBSD instead of GNU make (/usr/local/bin/gmake). > > Sorry, but I don't know how to persuade the configure script to use > gmake :-( easy - mkdir ~/mynewbin l

Re: [Rd] Rmpi and OpenMPI ?

2007-04-02 Thread Ramon Diaz-Uriarte
On Friday 30 March 2007 22:01, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: > On 30 March 2007 at 12:48, Ei-ji Nakama wrote: > | Prof. Nakano(ism Japan) and I wrestled in Rmpi on HP-MPI. > | Do not know a method to distinguish MPI well? > | It is an ad-hoc patch at that time as follows. > > Thank you *very much* for t