sapply() stems from S / S+ times and hence has a long tradition.
In spite of that I think that it should be enhanced...
As the subject mentions, sapply() produces a matrix in cases
where the list components of the lapply(.) results are of the
same length (and ...).
However, it unfortunately "stops
Hello,
I have created my own R package and written the documentation in Rd
format for each of the functions plus the package itself.
However now the functions appear in a random order in the generated PDF
and the package documentation entry is placed in between the functions,
when I would like
On 01/12/2010 7:27 AM, Aleksi Kallio wrote:
Hello,
I have created my own R package and written the documentation in Rd
format for each of the functions plus the package itself.
However now the functions appear in a random order in the generated PDF
and the package documentation entry is placed
On Dec 1, 2010, at 2:39 AM, Martin Maechler wrote:
> sapply() stems from S / S+ times and hence has a long tradition.
> In spite of that I think that it should be enhanced...
>
> As the subject mentions, sapply() produces a matrix in cases
> where the list components of the lapply(.) results are
On Wed, 1 Dec 2010, Aleksi Kallio wrote:
Hello,
I have created my own R package and written the documentation in Rd
format for each of the functions plus the package itself.
However now the functions appear in a random order in the generated PDF
and the package documentation entry is placed in
I think an even better approach would be to extract the
"simplification" component out of sapply, so that could write
sapply <- function(...) simplify(lapply(...))
(although obviously some arguments would go to lapply and some to simplify).
The advantage of this would be that you could use the s
> -Original Message-
> From: r-devel-boun...@r-project.org
> [mailto:r-devel-boun...@r-project.org] On Behalf Of Hadley Wickham
> Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 6:27 AM
> To: Martin Maechler
> Cc: r-de...@stat.math.ethz.ch
> Subject: Re: [Rd] RFC: sapply() limitation from vector to
>
Hi,
> R CMD Rd2dvi --pdf
> I get the pages in alphabetical order, except that the package page
> comes first.
I was actually using an ancient version, 2.5. Updating to a later one moved the
package page first.
So now the output I'm getting is "good enough". I would still like to reorder
funct
Hi again,
And sorry for the spam.
> So now the output I'm getting is "good enough". I would still like to reorder
> functions so that they appear in a more logical order, so if anyone has
> ideas, please share!
Newer R versions also add an index page at the end. In my case it is obsolete,
so
This post asks members of the R community, users and developers,
to comment on issues related to the GNU Public License
and R community policies more generally.
The GPL says very little about protecting the the rights of original
contributors by not disseminating misleading information about them
On 01/12/2010 12:25 PM, Aleksi Kallio wrote:
Hi again,
And sorry for the spam.
> So now the output I'm getting is "good enough". I would still like to
reorder functions so that they appear in a more logical order, so if anyone has ideas,
please share!
Newer R versions also add an index page
> A downside of that approach is that lapply(X,...) can
> cause a lot of unneeded memory to be allocated (length(X)
> SEXP's). Those SEXP's would be tossed out by simplify() but
> the peak memory usage would remain high. sapply() can
> be written to avoid the intermediate list structure.
But the
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 2:53 PM, Douglas Bates wrote:
> Against my better judgement I will try to correct a misconception. I
> fear that my message will only fan the flames but I also think that
> if we are to be subjected to long, drawn out, personal attacks on this
> subject then the readers o
> Perhaps a wider community of R users can weigh in on a
> policy decision that was implicitly deemed acceptable on this
> thread. Namely, that it is fine to arbitrarily and
> for no reason deprecate the contributions of past
> authors, and as more progress is made, even more
> disparaging remarks
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 9:45 PM, Dominick Samperi wrote:
> Perhaps a wider community of R users can weigh in on a
> policy decision that was implicitly deemed acceptable on this
> thread. Namely, that it is fine to arbitrarily and
> for no reason deprecate the contributions of past
> authors, and
64-bit R-2.12.0 was installed on Sun SPARC Solaris 10. Compiler used is
solstudio12.2. Attached is the configure script.
I then tried to install a recommended package called Matrix. The compilation
failed with the following messages,
...
CC -library=stlport4 -G -L/opt/csw/lib/sparcv9 -L/opt/s
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Hadley Wickham wrote:
>> Perhaps a wider community of R users can weigh in on a
>> policy decision that was implicitly deemed acceptable on this
>> thread. Namely, that it is fine to arbitrarily and
>> for no reason deprecate the contributions of past
>> authors, an
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 6:37 PM, Gabor Grothendieck
wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Hadley Wickham wrote:
> >> Perhaps a wider community of R users can weigh in on a
> >> policy decision that was implicitly deemed acceptable on this
> >> thread. Namely, that it is fine to arbitrarily and
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 7:20 PM, Dominick Samperi wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 6:37 PM, Gabor Grothendieck
> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Hadley Wickham wrote:
>> >> Perhaps a wider community of R users can weigh in on a
>> >> policy decision that was implicitly deemed acceptab
Hi, Dominick, et al.:
I know nothing about about Rcpp, it's history and the
contributions of Dominick and anyone else. I think everyone should be
appropriately recognized for their contributions.
However, I feel compelled to briefly outline personal experiences
with collaborat
Hi, Dominick, et al.:
I know nothing about about Rcpp, it's history and the
contributions of Dominick and anyone else. I think everyone should be
appropriately recognized for their contributions.
However, I feel compelled to briefly outline personal experiences
with collaborat
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 7:55 PM, Gabor Grothendieck
wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 7:20 PM, Dominick Samperi
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 6:37 PM, Gabor Grothendieck <
> ggrothendi...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Hadley Wickham wrote:
> >> >> Perhaps a w
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 8:19 PM, Spencer Graves <
spencer.gra...@structuremonitoring.com> wrote:
> Hi, Dominick, et al.:
>
>
> I know nothing about about Rcpp, it's history and the contributions of
> Dominick and anyone else. I think everyone should be appropriately
> recognized for their con
Dominick,
I don't use the Rcpp package but I have been aware of the changes made to
the package over the years.
I don't see what you are after. I don't consider the mention about
your contribution in the authors section disparaging in ANY way. It seems
reasonable that as the code base gro
We need more information, at the minimum the line which compiled
CHMfactor.o. Can you make the install log (you may need to run this
again) and your etc/Makeconf available on-line?
At first sight your C++ compiler is missing -m64: the R-admin manual
says
'For a 64-bit target add -m64 to the
Good morning Dominick,
I don't use the Rcpp package and have only the vaguest notions of its
history.
One of your requests is that your name might be removed from the project as
you no longer wish to be associated with it. However, I suspect that it is
simply not legal to remove your copyright n
On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 20:24 -0500, Dominick Samperi wrote:
> > Just to be clear I have never used the package and am not truly
> > commenting on this particular case but only the general ideas in this
> > thread. Also I was not suggesting that the comments in the code were
> > purposefully mislea
On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 19:25 +0200, Aleksi Kallio wrote:
> Hi again,
>
> And sorry for the spam.
>
> > So now the output I'm getting is "good enough". I would still like
> to reorder functions so that they appear in a more logical order, so
> if anyone has ideas, please share!
The manual isn't me
28 matches
Mail list logo
