> In the next version of the survival package I intend to make a
non-upwardly compatable
> change to the survfit object. With over 600 dependent packages this is
not something to
> take lightly, and I am currently undecided about the best way to go about
it. I'm looking
> for advice.
>
> The chan
Would this not be the case *for* a new package?
FWIW I would much prefer packages maintainers who make significant changes
also change the name of the package (e.g. to survival2). That way
disturbance is minimized and the package’s developers can add features and
refactor their code much faster.
On 6/1/19 1:32 PM, Marc Schwartz wrote:
On Jun 1, 2019, at 12:59 PM, Peter Langfelder
wrote:
On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 3:22 AM Therneau, Terry M., Ph.D. via R-devel
wrote:
In the next version of the survival package I intend to make a non-upwardly
compatable
change to the survfit object.
I do not know if this is a bug or a case of improper documentation. The
documentation for formatC() implies that the difference between the options
format="f" and format="g" is that with "g", scientific format is sometimes
used. There is another difference between them that is not mentioned in the
There appears to be a single "\n" missing from the body of stats:::summary.stl,
causing the "Time.series components" and "IQR" sections to butt up against each
other. The fix should be to simply switch
cat(" IQR:\n")
for
cat("\n IQR:\n")
While looking at this function I wondered: Ha
> On Jun 1, 2019, at 12:59 PM, Peter Langfelder
> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 3:22 AM Therneau, Terry M., Ph.D. via R-devel
> wrote:
>>
>> In the next version of the survival package I intend to make a non-upwardly
>> compatable
>> change to the survfit object. With over 600 depende
On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 3:22 AM Therneau, Terry M., Ph.D. via R-devel
wrote:
>
> In the next version of the survival package I intend to make a non-upwardly
> compatable
> change to the survfit object. With over 600 dependent packages this is not
> something to
> take lightly, and I am currently
> Juan Telleria Ruiz de Aguirre
> on Thu, 30 May 2019 18:46:29 +0200 writes:
>Thank you Gabriel for valuable insights on the 64-bit integers topic.
>In addition, my statement was wrong, as Python3 seems to have unlimited
>(and variable) size integers.
If you are
On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 5:22 AM Therneau, Terry M., Ph.D. via R-devel
wrote:
>
> In the next version of the survival package I intend to make a non-upwardly
> compatable
> change to the survfit object. With over 600 dependent packages this is not
> something to
> take lightly, and I am currently
In the next version of the survival package I intend to make a non-upwardly
compatable
change to the survfit object. With over 600 dependent packages this is not
something to
take lightly, and I am currently undecided about the best way to go about it.
I'm looking
for advice.
The change: 2
10 matches
Mail list logo
