I can agree with the other responses, and mention that I'm on the
other side of the coin, so to speak.
The *only* reason I tried R to begin with was to find out if it could
handle data whose time scale was in minutes and seconds better than
the other software I was using. With its POSIXt class,
On Thu, 22-Apr-2004 at 07:53PM +, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
[]
|> Time zones are not part of the problem
|> yet you have to track them. That conflicts with good design
|> since good design means your programs don't depend on extraneous
|> elements.
|>
|> With chron and Date there are
Frank E Harrell Jr spamcop.net> writes:
> I noticed the addition of the Dates class for dates without times, in R
> 1.9. I am making extensive use of POSIXct at present and would like to
> know whether it is worth changing to Dates. What are a few of the
> trade-offs?
Before Date became availab
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004, Frank E Harrell Jr wrote:
> I noticed the addition of the Dates class for dates without times, in R
> 1.9. I am making extensive use of POSIXct at present and would like to
> know whether it is worth changing to Dates. What are a few of the
> trade-offs?
You lose the abilit
I noticed the addition of the Dates class for dates without times, in R
1.9. I am making extensive use of POSIXct at present and would like to
know whether it is worth changing to Dates. What are a few of the
trade-offs?
Thanks,
Frank
---
Frank E Harrell Jr Professor and Chair Schoo
