On Fri, 15 Jan 2010, Don MacQueen wrote:
Here's an example (session info at the end).
tmpv <- c('\265g/L','Bq/L')
order(tmpv)
[1] 2 1
tmpv <- I(tmpv)
order(tmpv)
Error in if (xi > xj) 1L else -1L : missing value where TRUE/FALSE needed
foov <- gsub('\265','',tmpv)
order(foov)
[1] 2
Here's an example (session info at the end).
tmpv <- c('\265g/L','Bq/L')
order(tmpv)
[1] 2 1
tmpv <- I(tmpv)
order(tmpv)
Error in if (xi > xj) 1L else -1L : missing value where TRUE/FALSE needed
foov <- gsub('\265','',tmpv)
order(foov)
[1] 2 1
str(tmpv)
Class 'AsIs' chr [1:2] "\26
Well I guess there's no point in starting a discussion here. I can also do all
calculations, gather the plots in a list before starting the pdf device and
plot them later. But just to prove my point: the attached pdfs (generated in a
clean session, on the system used to generate the bug report)
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 12:34 -0500, Simon Urbanek wrote:
>
> On Jan 15, 2010, at 12:18 , Ross Boylan wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 09:19 +0100, Kurt Hornik wrote:
> >> The idea is that maintainers typically want to
> >> fully check their functionality, suggesting to force suggests by
> >> def
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 10:48 +, Benilton Carvalho wrote:
> How about using:
>
> Enhances: Rmpi
>
> ?
>
> b
The main reason is that "enhances" seems a peculiar way to describe the
relation between a package that (optionally) uses a piece of
infrastructure and the infrastructure. Similarly, I
How is this a bug in R? First, multicore is not R. Second, you're
running multicore with GUI code loaded which it explicitly tells you
that it won't work. Third, the code you provided does produce correct
PDFs (tested on the same platform you provided) in a clean session
(unsurprisingly).
On Jan 15, 2010, at 12:18 , Ross Boylan wrote:
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 09:19 +0100, Kurt Hornik wrote:
The idea is that maintainers typically want to
fully check their functionality, suggesting to force suggests by
default.
This might be the nub of the problem. There are different audiences,
e
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 09:19 +0100, Kurt Hornik wrote:
> The idea is that maintainers typically want to
> fully check their functionality, suggesting to force suggests by
> default.
This might be the nub of the problem. There are different audiences,
even for R CMD check.
The maintainer probably w
On Fri, 15 Jan 2010, Seth Falcon wrote:
There is a real need (of some kind) here. Not all packages work on all
platforms. For example, the multicore package provides a mechanism for
running parallel computations on a multi-cpu box, but it is not
available on Windows. A package that _is_ avai
On 15.01.2010 16:22, Seth Falcon wrote:
On 1/15/10 12:19 AM, Kurt Hornik wrote:
Jeff Ryan writes:
Hi Ross,
The quantmod package makes available routines from a variety of
contributed packages, but gets around your issues with a bit of, um,
trickery.
Take a look here (unless your name is
On Jan 15, 2010, at 10:22 , Seth Falcon wrote:
On 1/15/10 12:19 AM, Kurt Hornik wrote:
Jeff Ryan writes:
Hi Ross,
The quantmod package makes available routines from a variety of
contributed packages, but gets around your issues with a bit of, um,
trickery.
Take a look here (unless your n
On 1/15/10 12:19 AM, Kurt Hornik wrote:
>> Jeff Ryan writes:
>
>> Hi Ross,
>> The quantmod package makes available routines from a variety of
>> contributed packages, but gets around your issues with a bit of, um,
>> trickery.
>
>> Take a look here (unless your name is Kurt ;-) ):
I believe
The attached code produces corrupted pdfs (test2.pdf, test4.pdf and
test5.pdf). The resulting pdf depends on how many cores are available on
the machine.
I don't see why there should be any difference between the pdfs (exept for
the timestamp). Doing many operations involving mclapply can increas
On 14.01.2010 23:25, Ben Bolker wrote:
I think this is probably known by someone, but I wanted to ask/comment:
The 'adapt' package has been removed from CRAN because of an 'unclear'
license. That makes sense, but it actually took a bit of digging for me
to discover that, and if I had be
How about using:
Enhances: Rmpi
?
b
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 6:00 AM, Ross Boylan wrote:
> I have a package that can use rmpi, but works fine without it. None of
> the automatic test code invokes rmpi functionality. (One test file
> illustrates how to use it, but has quit() as its first comma
> Jeff Ryan writes:
> Hi Ross,
> The quantmod package makes available routines from a variety of
> contributed packages, but gets around your issues with a bit of, um,
> trickery.
> Take a look here (unless your name is Kurt ;-) ):
But Kurt will we happy to tell you that you can turn off "fo
16 matches
Mail list logo
