Thomas Lumley wrote:
> The reason why detach and reload doesn't work but restarting does work for
> utils is that detach() does not unload the package, it only detaches it.
> This distinction was introduced with namespaces. A package can be loaded
> but not in the search path.
Ah-ha. The disti
On Tue, 3 Aug 2004, Thomas Lumley wrote:
> I can't remember the historical reason why utils isn't loaded in binary
> form in 1.9.1. In r-devel they are all loaded from binary databases when
> used.
It's size. The R code for utils is relatively small (relative to stats
and graphics, or lattice
On Tue, 3 Aug 2004, Rolf Turner wrote:
>
> Thomas Lumley wrote:
>
> > Because, as you noted, the base packages are stored in binary form. This
> > already speeds things up, and will have even more impact in 2.0.0 with
> > "lazy loading" of functions.
>
> This CANNOT be the (complete) explan
Thomas Lumley wrote:
> > However attr(arima,"source") was still NULL (and of course comments
> > were non-existant). Apparently the functions in stats get
> > ***loaded*** from a binary file ``all.rda'' (in the
> > .../library/stats/R directory) rather than getting read in from ascii
> > files.
Thomas Lumley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Personally, I find this the easiest way to look at the source. You can
> browse the source on https://svn.r-project.org/R/ if you are using a
> binary distribution, rather than downloading the whole thing.
Except that you probably don't want to, i.e. gr
On Tue, 3 Aug 2004, Rolf Turner wrote:
>
> However, after substantial experimentation, I am still at a loss to
> get at the original source code for arima() (replete with comments)
> save by accessing the original, ``unmade'' source for R. Not too
> hard, but not exactly ``immediate''.
Personally
Recently Brian Ripley had occasion to mock my inability to see a
comment in the code for arima(), in the stats package. After
considerable dredging around in the r-news archives I found reference
to keep.source() and keep.source.pkgs(), which I conjectured just
***might*** possibly be the ``obvio
