Is there some way to prevent finalizers running during a section of code?
I have a package that includes R objects linked to database tables. To
maintain the call-by-value semantics, tables are copied rather than
modified, and the extra tables are removed by finalizers during garbage
collection.
Hi Duncan,
On 02/12/2013 11:19 AM, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
On 12/02/2013 1:47 PM, Hervé Pagès wrote:
On 02/12/2013 08:20 AM, peter dalgaard wrote:
>
> On Feb 12, 2013, at 17:05 , Brian Lee Yung Rowe wrote:
>
>>
>> I thought that the default was the way it was for performance
reasons. For large da
On 12/02/2013 1:47 PM, Hervé Pagès wrote:
On 02/12/2013 08:20 AM, peter dalgaard wrote:
>
> On Feb 12, 2013, at 17:05 , Brian Lee Yung Rowe wrote:
>
>>
>> I thought that the default was the way it was for performance reasons. For
large data.frames or repeated applications, using factors should b
On 02/12/2013 08:20 AM, peter dalgaard wrote:
On Feb 12, 2013, at 17:05 , Brian Lee Yung Rowe wrote:
I thought that the default was the way it was for performance reasons. For
large data.frames or repeated applications, using factors should be faster for
non-trivial strings.
I think not.
Hi Parthasarathy,
IMHO the easiest way to contribute to R is contributing to an R
package. And one way to do that is to apply for a Google Summer of Code
project. I guess activities about that will start soon, as the program
was just announced, and they will take place at a separate email list:
g
On Feb 12, 2013, at 11:05 AM, Brian Lee Yung Rowe wrote:
>
> I thought that the default was the way it was for performance reasons. For
> large data.frames or repeated applications, using factors should be faster
> for non-trivial strings.
>
>> fs <- c('apple','peach','watermelon','spinach','
I think it may have been John D. Cook who first observed that p-values are
linearly correlated with the amount of time remaining on a grant.
Perhaps a suitable transform would reveal an ordinal relationship with
stars.
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 7:03 AM, Ravi Varadhan wrote:
> They are "reaching
They are "reaching for the stars". Pardon my jest, but I couldn't resist.
Ravi
-Original Message-
From: r-devel-boun...@r-project.org [mailto:r-devel-boun...@r-project.org] On
Behalf Of Uwe Ligges
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 10:01 AM
To: Frank Harrell
Cc: r-devel@r-project.org
Sub
Here is the current behavior (in 2.15.2 and 3.0.0):
> exists(c('notLikely', 'exists'))
[1] FALSE
> exists(c('exists', 'notLikely'))
[1] TRUE
> get(c('notLikely', 'exists'))
Error in get(c("notLikely", "exists")) : object 'notLikely' not found
> get(c('exists', 'notLikely'))
function (x, where = -
On Feb 12, 2013, at 17:05 , Brian Lee Yung Rowe wrote:
>
> I thought that the default was the way it was for performance reasons. For
> large data.frames or repeated applications, using factors should be faster
> for non-trivial strings.
I think not. Historically, it's more like "In statistic
I thought that the default was the way it was for performance reasons. For
large data.frames or repeated applications, using factors should be faster for
non-trivial strings.
> fs <- c('apple','peach','watermelon','spinach','persimmon','potato','kale')
> n <- 100
>
> a1 <- data.frame(f=samp
On 12/02/2013 10:40 AM, Ben Bolker wrote:
On 13-02-12 09:20 AM, Uwe Ligges wrote:
>
>
> On 12.02.2013 14:54, Ben Bolker wrote:
>> Duncan Murdoch gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>[snip]
>>>
>>> Regarding stringsAsFactors: I'm not going to defend keeping it as is,
>>> I'll let the people who like it d
On 12.02.2013 16:40, Ben Bolker wrote:
On 13-02-12 09:20 AM, Uwe Ligges wrote:
On 12.02.2013 14:54, Ben Bolker wrote:
Duncan Murdoch gmail.com> writes:
[snip]
Regarding stringsAsFactors: I'm not going to defend keeping it as is,
I'll let the people who like it defend it.
Woul
On 13-02-12 09:20 AM, Uwe Ligges wrote:
>
>
> On 12.02.2013 14:54, Ben Bolker wrote:
>> Duncan Murdoch gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>[snip]
>>>
>>> Regarding stringsAsFactors: I'm not going to defend keeping it as is,
>>> I'll let the people who like it defend it.
>>
>>Would someone (anyone)
On 12.02.2013 15:42, Frank Harrell wrote:
Uwe I've been consulting for decades and have never once been asked for such
stars.
Honestly: last time I have been asked last week.
And when I answered (in another case few months ago) "OK, I can add you
another 5 stars for p values smaller than 0.
I think that we should use P < .03 (which approximates the probability of 5
consecutive heads) for assigning significance!
Ravi
-Original Message-
From: r-devel-boun...@r-project.org [mailto:r-devel-boun...@r-project.org] On
Behalf Of Frank Harrell
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 9:43
Hi,
I am Parthasarathy G , from IIT Maras ( India ). I am currently in third
year of the undergraduate course.
I would like to contribute to the R project. Can anyone guide me regarding
this?
Thanking you,
Parthasarathy
[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
_
On 12/02/2013 9:20 AM, Uwe Ligges wrote:
On 12.02.2013 14:54, Ben Bolker wrote:
> Duncan Murdoch gmail.com> writes:
>
>[snip]
>>
>> Regarding stringsAsFactors: I'm not going to defend keeping it as is,
>> I'll let the people who like it defend it.
>
>Would someone (anyone) like to come
Uwe I've been consulting for decades and have never once been asked for such
stars. And when a clinical researcher puts a sentence in a study protocol
that P<0.05 will be considered "significant" I get them to take it out.
Frank
Uwe Ligges-3 wrote
> On 12.02.2013 14:54, Ben Bolker wrote:
>> Dunca
On 12.02.2013 14:54, Ben Bolker wrote:
Duncan Murdoch gmail.com> writes:
[snip]
Regarding stringsAsFactors: I'm not going to defend keeping it as is,
I'll let the people who like it defend it.
Would someone (anyone) like to come forward and give us a defense
of stringsAsFactors=TRU
> Here my question: Would it be an option to place the widgets in a private
> environment of my plugin package (then I would have to learn how to create
> one and work with it), or won't they be found that way?
It sounds like you want to maintain state across function calls within
your package, an
Duncan Murdoch gmail.com> writes:
[snip]
>
> Regarding stringsAsFactors: I'm not going to defend keeping it as is,
> I'll let the people who like it defend it.
Would someone (anyone) like to come forward and give us a defense
of stringsAsFactors=TRUE -- even someone who doesn't personal
Dear DevelopeRs,
I've been struggling with the new regulations regarding modifications to
the search path, regarding my Rcmdr plugin package RcmdrPlugin.DoE. John
Fox made Rcmdr comply with the new policy by removing the environment
RcmdrEnv from the search path. For the time being, he develop
FWIW my view is that for data cleaning and organizing factors just get
it the way. For modeling I like them because they make it easier to
understand what is happening. For example I can look at the levels()
to see what the reference group will be. With characters one has to
know a) that levels are
24 matches
Mail list logo
