On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 6:43 PM, Joris Meys wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 12:38 AM, Dominick Samperi
> wrote:
>
> > We? Romain did not arrive on the scene until after November of 2009.
> >
> > To live outside the law you must be honest --- Bob Dylan.
> >
> >[[alternative HTML version de
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 12:38 AM, Dominick Samperi wrote:
> We? Romain did not arrive on the scene until after November of 2009.
>
> To live outside the law you must be honest --- Bob Dylan.
>
> [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
>
Peter Dalgaard and Martin Maechler were pretty clear if y
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 5:58 PM, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
>
> On 2 December 2010 at 17:23, Dominick Samperi wrote:
> | OK, since you are so accomodating, then please remove all reference to
> | my name from Rcpp as I do not want to be subject to arbitrary revisions
> of
> | my status. I may not ha
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 5:58 PM, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
>
> On 2 December 2010 at 17:23, Dominick Samperi wrote:
> | OK, since you are so accomodating, then please remove all reference to
> | my name from Rcpp as I do not want to be subject to arbitrary revisions
> of
> | my status. I may not ha
On 2 December 2010 at 17:23, Dominick Samperi wrote:
| OK, since you are so accomodating, then please remove all reference to
| my name from Rcpp as I do not want to be subject to arbitrary revisions of
| my status. I may not have the right to say how my prior work will be used,
| but I think I ha
While we are on the subject of terminology, it is important to remember
that Rcpp is a C++ library, and this is often confused with Rcpp the
package. I changed the package name to limit confusion on this
point, but the package name was changed back to Rcpp for the "fork" (or
"branch", not sure what
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 4:35 PM, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
>
> There are repeated claims concerning a "Rcpp fork". Let's address both
> terms
> in turn.
>
> i) Rcpp was used in November 2008 as the name for a re-launch of a package
>which had seen releases on CRAN in 2005/2006 during which it
Matt,
please use
R -d gdb
and then "bt" for a more useful trace.
Thanks,
Simon
On Dec 2, 2010, at 4:06 PM, Matt Shotwell wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-11-24 at 12:12 -0500, ivo welch wrote:
>> I just figured out what is happening. The root drive (presumably OSX
>> virtual memory) becomes depleted.
There are repeated claims concerning a "Rcpp fork". Let's address both terms
in turn.
i) Rcpp was used in November 2008 as the name for a re-launch of a package
which had seen releases on CRAN in 2005/2006 during which it was also
renamed to RcppTemplate. Hence no package of name Rcpp h
On Wed, 2010-11-24 at 12:12 -0500, ivo welch wrote:
> I just figured out what is happening. The root drive (presumably OSX
> virtual memory) becomes depleted. The error message about "memory not
> mapped" was a hint, too. So, not really R's fault. However, I wonder
It still may be R's fault.
Prof. Ripley,
I've just done the installation of the R package 'Matrix' to my 64-bit R
2.12.0, and it is loaded fine. Seems adding -m64 to the CXX line solved the
problem.
I had,
CC="cc -xc99 -m64 -xarch=sparcvis2"
CXX="CC -library=stlport4"
And now I have (the working version),
CC="cc -xc
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 12:29 PM, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 11:24 AM, Claudia Beleites
> wrote:
> > On 12/02/2010 10:32 AM, Liviu Andronic wrote:
> >>
> >> Dear all
> >>
> >> On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 7:21 PM, Dominick Samperi
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> The author line of the
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 11:24 AM, Claudia Beleites wrote:
> On 12/02/2010 10:32 AM, Liviu Andronic wrote:
>>
>> Dear all
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 7:21 PM, Dominick Samperi
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> The author line of the latest release of the R package
>>> Rcpp (0.8.9) was revised as follows:
>>>
>>>
On 12/02/2010 10:32 AM, Liviu Andronic wrote:
Dear all
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 7:21 PM, Dominick Samperi wrote:
The author line of the latest release of the R package
Rcpp (0.8.9) was revised as follows:
From: "based on code written during 2005 and 2006 by Dominick Samperi"
To: "a small porti
On Dec 2, 2010, at 15:20 , Martyn Plummer wrote:
> Everybody knows that you have an acrimonious relationship with the
> current developers of Rcpp (and if they don't then a cursory look at the
> rcpp-devel archives will confirm this). The issue of the acknowledgment
> that you are complaining ab
> Dominick Samperi
> on Thu, 2 Dec 2010 03:27:58 -0500 writes:
> On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 2:51 AM, Gavin Simpson
wrote:
>> 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
>> > > co
Your original question is predicated on the notion that people are
"disseminating misleading information about" you, with this phrase: "a
small portion of the code is based on code written during 2005 and
2006 by Dominick Samperi". While it may be difficult to qualify
contributions to a joint proj
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 10:47 AM, Joris Meys wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 4:31 PM, Dominick Samperi
> wrote:
> >
> > Worst yet is having to compete with your own work.
> >
> About which competition are we talking then? I'm sorry, but the vast
> majority of the 7 lines of code of the rcpp a
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 4:31 PM, Dominick Samperi wrote:
>
> Worst yet is having to compete with your own work.
>
About which competition are we talking then? I'm sorry, but the vast
majority of the 7 lines of code of the rcpp are not your work. And
honestly, I don't know of any package that wo
Yes, I agree, Spencer. The worst thing that can happen is for your
ideas/creations to go completely unnoticed.
Here is what David Hume had to say about how his first philosophical work
(Treatise of Human Nature) was received:
"Never literary attempt was more unfortunate than my Treatise of Human
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 10:21 AM, Spencer Graves <
spencer.gra...@structuremonitoring.com> wrote:
> On 12/2/2010 6:20 AM, Martyn Plummer wrote:
>
>> Dear Dominick,
>>
>> The R community does not have a conflict resolution mechanism. We are
>> quite used to disputes that end with one party, usually
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 9:20 AM, Martyn Plummer wrote:
> Dear Dominick,
>
> The R community does not have a conflict resolution mechanism. We are
> quite used to disputes that end with one party, usually a recognized
> authority, saying "No, you are objectively, verifiably wrong". We
> cannot,
On 12/2/2010 6:20 AM, Martyn Plummer wrote:
Dear Dominick,
The R community does not have a conflict resolution mechanism. We are
quite used to disputes that end with one party, usually a recognized
authority, saying "No, you are objectively, verifiably wrong". We
cannot, as a group, deal with
Dear Dominick,
The R community does not have a conflict resolution mechanism. We are
quite used to disputes that end with one party, usually a recognized
authority, saying "No, you are objectively, verifiably wrong". We
cannot, as a group, deal with anything else.
Everybody knows that you have
Dear all
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 7:21 PM, Dominick Samperi wrote:
> The author line of the latest release of the R package
> Rcpp (0.8.9) was revised as follows:
>
> From: "based on code written during 2005 and 2006 by Dominick Samperi"
>
> To: "a small portion of the code is based on code written
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 2:51 AM, Gavin Simpson wrote:
> 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 sugge
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 2:45 AM, Sean O'Riordain wrote:
> 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. Howe
27 matches
Mail list logo
