[Rd] Bug in all.equal() or in the plm package

2009-11-09 Thread Arne Henningsen
Hi! I noticed that there is a (minor) bug either the command all.equal() or in the "plm" package. I demonstrate this using an example taken from the documentation of plm(): == R> data("Produc", package="plm") R> zz <- plm(log(gsp)~log(pcap)+log(pc)+log(emp)+une

Re: [Rd] Bug in all.equal() or in the plm package

2009-11-09 Thread Duncan Murdoch
Arne Henningsen wrote: Hi! I noticed that there is a (minor) bug either the command all.equal() or in the "plm" package. I demonstrate this using an example taken from the documentation of plm(): I'm not sure this is a bug, but I'd call it at least a design flaw. The problem is that the l

Re: [Rd] Bug in all.equal() or in the plm package

2009-11-10 Thread Arne Henningsen
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 12:24 PM, Duncan Murdoch wrote: > Arne Henningsen wrote: >> >> I noticed that there is a (minor) bug either the command all.equal() >> or in the "plm" package. I demonstrate this using an example taken >> from the documentation of plm(): >> > > I'm not sure this is a bug, bu

Re: [Rd] Bug in all.equal() or in the plm package

2009-11-10 Thread Steven McKinney
Zeileis > Subject: Re: [Rd] Bug in all.equal() or in the plm package > > On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 12:24 PM, Duncan Murdoch > wrote: > > Arne Henningsen wrote: > >> > >> I noticed that there is a (minor) bug either the command all.equal() > >> or

Re: [Rd] Bug in all.equal() or in the plm package

2009-11-25 Thread Achim Zeileis
Hi, sorry for replying so late to this. I somehow missed the original thread and was just pointed to it by Yves... I noticed that there is a (minor) bug either the command all.equal() or in the "plm" package. I demonstrate this using an example taken from the documentation of plm(): I'm no