Hi Nathan,
Do you think you could provide a patch without the formatting and style
changes? This would be easier to read.
Martyn
On Mon, 2008-09-22 at 08:41 -0400, Nathan Coulter wrote:
> Nathan Coulter wrote:
>
> > The attached patch, built against the devel snapshot of 2008-09-20,
> > attemp
r-devel,
One other question just occurred to me - does R have any concept of
times alone? I can see that there's dates, and datetimes (POSIXct etc),
but how should I represent 12:34:56 as just a time?
Thanks,
Phil
> -Original Message-
> From: Jeff Ryan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent:
The chron package does:
library(chron)
times("12:34:56")
Internally times are represented as a faction of a day.
On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 3:41 PM, Lee, Philip (IT)
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> r-devel,
>
> One other question just occurred to me - does R have any concept of
> times alone? I can s
On 22 September 2008 at 15:41, Lee, Philip \(IT\) wrote:
| r-devel,
|
| One other question just occurred to me - does R have any concept of
| times alone? I can see that there's dates, and datetimes (POSIXct etc),
| but how should I represent 12:34:56 as just a time?
AFAIK you cannot as there i
In the body of base::mean.default the following piece of code is found:
if (trim >= 0.5)
return(stats::median(x, na.rm = FALSE))
Should this not be
if (trim >= 0.5)
return(stats::median(x, na.rm = na.rm))
where na.rm is supplied in the call to mean.defau
Not a bug. There is a statement in base::mean.default() before this
if (na.rm)
x <- x[!is.na(x)]
that removes any missing values. Thus, it is known that there are no
missing values beyond this statement.
/Henrik
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 8:25 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In the
Posting it to R-Devel:
Hello All,
In general when we use Rprof for performance evaluation on
Multicore systems the output provides the time on the basis of the "user"
time and the sampling time is equal to the the user time as reported by
system.time. This does not seem right behavi
Dear R-devel:
The following code seems to allow one function to permanently modify a
calling function. I did not expect this would be allowed (short of
more creative gymnastics) and wonder if it is really intended. (I can
see other ways to accomplish the intended task of this code [e.g. via
matc
Perry de Valpine wrote:
Dear R-devel:
The following code seems to allow one function to permanently modify a
calling function. I did not expect this would be allowed (short of
more creative gymnastics) and wonder if it is really intended. (I can
see other ways to accomplish the intended task o
