On Tue, 5 Aug 2003, Marsland, John wrote:
> I'm sure that many people are in the same position as me in that they are
> trying to write packages and code that is vaguely "future proof".
>
> Would it be possible to get some guidance on how the R-core team see the
> evolution of the "base" package
On 7 Aug 2003, Peter Dalgaard BSA wrote:
> [[ I did discover yesterday (or maybe I was just reminded...) that we
> even have nonstandard nonstandard evaluation rules in some places
> (nls() seems to evaluate its model formula in the global environment
> even if it is given explicitly within a funct
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> R version: 1.7.1
> OS: Red Hat Linux 7.2
>
> In this example, I would expect an error for the overly long variable
> name. This is always reproducable for me.
>
> > formula(paste("y~",paste(rep("x",5),collapse="")))
> Segmentation fault
Also in (reasonably) curr
Dear r-bugs,
It seems like the windows graphics device is having problems
recording plots when they are 5, 9, 13, ... in number. Given
temp <- function(nplt)
{
if(exists(".SavedPlots")) rm(.SavedPlots,pos=1)
for(d in dev.list()) dev.off()
windows(record=T)
for(i in 1:nplt) plot(0,0,pch=as
On Thursday, Aug 7, 2003, at 10:14 US/Eastern, Thomas Lumley wrote:
On 7 Aug 2003, Peter Dalgaard BSA wrote:
[[ I did discover yesterday (or maybe I was just reminded...) that we
even have nonstandard nonstandard evaluation rules in some places
(nls() seems to evaluate its model formula in the glo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Full_Name: Murray H Smith
> Version: 1.7.1
> OS: Windows2000
> Submission from: (NULL) (202.36.29.1)
>
I don't see any difference either difference using win.metafile() with
its defaults on WinNT 4.0, R-1.7.1. Please start R with --vanilla and
process your code again
