Rossi, Peter E. wrote:
>
> I have developed a package, bayesm, which uses existing classes of
> objects. I would like
> to add a new class corresponding to objects from this package.
>
> I have been reading about classes and all sources tell me that I should
> use
> so-called "new" or S4 classes
On 2/17/2007 10:57 AM, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
[ deletions ]
> Also I think that the success of R in the community is such that the core
> developers do have some responsibility to the community at large beyond
> their own needs.
I'd agree with this, as long as you don't limit it to the core
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007, Rossi, Peter E. wrote:
> I have developed a package, bayesm, which uses existing classes of
> objects. I would like to add a new class corresponding to objects from
> this package.
>
> I have been reading about classes and all sources tell me that I should
> use so-called
I have developed a package, bayesm, which uses existing classes of
objects. I would like
to add a new class corresponding to objects from this package.
I have been reading about classes and all sources tell me that I should
use
so-called "new" or S4 classes.
However, a major purpose of definin
Just because its open source does not mean everyone should do everything.
I suspect I have more expertise in Windows batch than the core developers
and also suspect they have more knowledge of the core than I so its a
good division of labor if I provide the batch files and they add -x
since it take
On Sat, 2007-02-17 at 09:31 -0500, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
> Surely R has higher standards than that. How about quality and
> completeness of implementation?
>
> Every other major scripting language has implemented this for good reason
> and its a glaring omission.
I think you are forgetting t
> Surely R has higher standards than that. How about quality and
> completeness of implementation?
>
> Every other major scripting language has implemented this for good
> reason and its a glaring omission.
Gabor, can we get a URL from you to a patch that implements this
functionality?
Than
Surely R has higher standards than that. How about quality and
completeness of implementation?
Every other major scripting language has implemented this for good reason
and its a glaring omission.
On 2/17/07, Duncan Murdoch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2/17/2007 7:31 AM, Gabor Grothendieck wr
On 2/17/2007 7:31 AM, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
> I think its best if core mods are done by the core group while others
> focus on work that can be done external to the core.
Fair enough, but then you also have to accept that the core group is
going to set the priorities. As far as I know *nobod
I think its best if core mods are done by the core group while others
focus on work that can be done external to the core.
Thus, what I have done is to enhance the batchfiles distribution with
3 new batchfiles: Rscript.bat, #Rscript.bat and runR.bat which will be
part of the
next distribution of b
On 2/16/2007 9:35 AM, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
> I mentioned this twice already and no one answered;however, I am mentioning
> this a third time since its a serious deficiency.
I agree this would be a reasonable addition, but I wouldn't class it as
a serious deficiency, and I don't plan to wo
11 matches
Mail list logo
