It seems benign, but has implications since checking time is actually not a
cheap operation: adding jus ta time check alone incurs a penalty of ca. 700%
compared with the time it takes to call R_CheckUserInterrupt(). Generally, it
makes no sense to check interrupts at every iteration - you'll fi
This seems like a great idea. Would it help to escalate this to a
post on R-bugzilla, so it is less likely to fall through the cracks?
On 12/17/24 09:51, Jeroen Ooms wrote:
A more generic solution would be for R to throttle calls to
R_CheckUserInterrupt(), because it makes no sense to check 1
A more generic solution would be for R to throttle calls to
R_CheckUserInterrupt(), because it makes no sense to check 1000 times
per second if a user has interrupted, but it is difficult for the
caller to know when R_CheckUserInterrupt() has been last called, or do
it regularly without over-doing
tl;dr: R_CheckUserInterrupt() can be a performance bottleneck
within GUIs. This also affects functions in the 'stats'
package, which could be improved by changing the position
of calls to R_CheckUserInterrupt().
Dear all,
Recently I was puzzled because some code in a packag
Hello,
Could there be clarification added to glm's documentation? In contrast, glmnet
leaves no ambiguity about what it expects for response.
glm: y: is a vector of observations of length n
glmnet: y: For family="binomial" should be either a factor with two levels, or
a two-column matrix of co
