Dear R developers,
I find the format of descriptions of the arguments in the read.table
help text slightly inconsistent.
For example, the logical arguments comes in seven different formats,
more or less explicit about the consequences of a TRUE (or FALSE):
1. check.names logical. If TRUE then
Full_Name: Suharto Anggono
Version: 2.8.1
OS: Windows
Submission from: (NULL) (125.165.84.118)
PR#14076 inspired me to write this.
> t1 <- as.POSIXct("1970-01-01 00:00:00", tz="GMT")
> t2 <- as.POSIXlt("1970-01-01 00:00:00", tz="GMT")
> t1 - t2
Time difference of 7 hours
Above, t1 and t2 repres
Marc Schwartz wrote:
On Jan 11, 2010, at 11:00 AM, Douglas Bates wrote:
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 10:34 AM, Ben Bolker wrote:
who wants to write rgl code to do these?
http://tinyurl.com/yzojfn2
http://tinyurl.com/ylrz2p8
:-)
I think that on this one we should follow Nancy Reagan's ad
On Jan 11, 2010, at 11:00 AM, Douglas Bates wrote:
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 10:34 AM, Ben Bolker wrote:
who wants to write rgl code to do these?
http://tinyurl.com/yzojfn2
http://tinyurl.com/ylrz2p8
:-)
I think that on this one we should follow Nancy Reagan's advice and
"Just say no"
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 10:34 AM, Ben Bolker wrote:
> who wants to write rgl code to do these?
> http://tinyurl.com/yzojfn2
> http://tinyurl.com/ylrz2p8
> :-)
I think that on this one we should follow Nancy Reagan's advice and
"Just say no".
I wonder if they have read Tufte's descriptions o
On 10.01.2010 12:58, Patrick Burns wrote:
I'm confused about how to change a repository
so that it doesn't hit the bug in 'available.packages'
in 2.10.0 that was fixed in 2.10.1.
I presume it involves adding fields to the
PACKAGES file.
I think an empty field an the PACKAGES file with only
who wants to write rgl code to do these?
http://tinyurl.com/yzojfn2
http://tinyurl.com/ylrz2p8
:-)
Ben Bolker
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
__
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-