Figured it out. MASS has a custom INDEX file ...
--
1.1.4 The INDEX file
The optional file INDEX contains a line for each sufficiently
interesting object in the package, giving its name and a description
(functions such as print methods not usually called explicitly might not
be included)
On 19/05/18 07:44, Ben Bolker wrote:
I notice that when I say help(package="MASS") I get separate indices
for functions and data sets. AFAICT this doesn't seem to occur in other
packages that have both functions and data sets (e.g. mgcv, lattice,
lme4), despite the tags \docType{data} and
Ben,
Been meaning to write a short blog post about it as it also affects two (old)
packages of mine. My favourite is to just rely on the Rd macros to the
fullest, and I generally just hand-edit it -- no promptPackage() use.
See eg this side-by-side diff of the first of the two I need to update;
I notice that when I say help(package="MASS") I get separate indices
for functions and data sets. AFAICT this doesn't seem to occur in other
packages that have both functions and data sets (e.g. mgcv, lattice,
lme4), despite the tags \docType{data} and \keywords{datasets} being
used in the rel
I was advised to update the metadata in the "*-package.Rd" man page
of an old CRAN package (emdbook), which had gotten out of date. As
suggested I used promptPackage() to build a new emdbook-package.Rd file.
I did that, but I was surprised/confused that it essentially dumped all
of the DESCRIP
> Duncan Murdoch
> on Fri, 18 May 2018 11:42:53 -0400 writes:
> On 18/05/2018 11:37 AM, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
>> On 18/05/2018 11:29 AM, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
>>> On 18/05/2018 11:06 AM, Joris Meys wrote:
Hi all,
The latest changes in R cause a
Seems as if it is restricted to people with PhDs.
Avi
On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 1:13 PM J C Nash wrote:
> It occurs to me that there could be packages developed by early career R
> developers that might fit
> this prize which is considered quite prestigious (not to mention the cash)
> in the nume
It occurs to me that there could be packages developed by early career R
developers that might fit
this prize which is considered quite prestigious (not to mention the cash) in
the numerical methods community.
It is also likely that people may not be aware of the award in the R community.
Cheers
On 18/05/2018 11:37 AM, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
On 18/05/2018 11:29 AM, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
On 18/05/2018 11:06 AM, Joris Meys wrote:
Hi all,
The latest changes in R cause a lot of Rd warnings about file links that
don't exist and are treated as a topic. One example is
\code{\link[stats]{fitt
On 18/05/2018 11:29 AM, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
On 18/05/2018 11:06 AM, Joris Meys wrote:
Hi all,
The latest changes in R cause a lot of Rd warnings about file links that
don't exist and are treated as a topic. One example is
\code{\link[stats]{fitted}}
Now if I look at ?fitted , the name of th
On 18/05/2018 11:06 AM, Joris Meys wrote:
Hi all,
The latest changes in R cause a lot of Rd warnings about file links that
don't exist and are treated as a topic. One example is
\code{\link[stats]{fitted}}
Now if I look at ?fitted , the name of the page (top left corner) is given
as "fitted".
Hi all,
The latest changes in R cause a lot of Rd warnings about file links that
don't exist and are treated as a topic. One example is
\code{\link[stats]{fitted}}
Now if I look at ?fitted , the name of the page (top left corner) is given
as "fitted". So I would expect that the code above should
I am afraid that these suggestions may not work. There are more choices than
Win32 and Win64, including several flavours of BLAS/Lapack which probably are
involved if you evaluate eigenvalues, and also differences in hardware,
compilers and phase of the moon. If there are several equal eigenval
In my opinion, the underlying problem is that you are checking whether
the test reproduces exactly your pre-computed solution, while there
actually exist other valid answers.
I believe you want to check whether the sub-spaces are the same, not
whether the bases are identical (which can depend on p
> William Dunlap
> on Thu, 17 May 2018 11:28:50 -0700 writes:
> Your explanation needs to be a bit more general in the
> case of identical eigenvalues - each distinct eigenvalue
> has an associated subspace, whose dimension is the number
> repeats of that eigenvalue an
15 matches
Mail list logo
