Subscribe: Comentarios para Enchufa2
http://www.enchufa2.es/comments/feed/
Preview: Comentarios para Enchufa2

Comentarios para Enchufa2





Last Build Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2018 16:02:16 +0000

 



Comentario en Documenting R packages: roxygen2 vs. direct Rd input por Iñaki Úcar

Mon, 05 Feb 2018 16:02:16 +0000

Nice analysis. I’d like to see some more focused questions.
Me too! There is a lot of potential fun by playing with these data and the output from tools::CRAN_package_db(). If I had time... ;-)
So adding one line of documentation could add more value than 10 new features.
Agreed. And I particularly care about vignettes. That's the first thing I look for when I start using a new package.



Comentario en Documenting R packages: roxygen2 vs. direct Rd input por Nathan

Mon, 05 Feb 2018 14:58:28 +0000

Nice analysis. I'd like to see some more focused questions. There are plenty of instances where a dataset is provided with barely any description. I don't think I can give up roxygen2. I've only written one package before using roxygen and R Studio's build tools, and the mental scars remain to this day. But I know for a fact my documentation's been slipping in quality ever since using roxygen. When you think about it, the internet (especially GitHub) means there are a lot of potential users for our packages, but they'll only use what they understand. So adding one line of documentation could add more value than 10 new features.



Comentario en Documenting R packages: roxygen2 vs. direct Rd input por Documenting R packages: roxygen2 vs. direct Rd input - biva

Mon, 05 Feb 2018 07:16:10 +0000

[…] Article originally published in Enchufa2.es: Documenting R packages: roxygen2 vs. direct Rd input. […]



Comentario en Documenting R packages: roxygen2 vs. direct Rd input por Documenting R packages: roxygen2 vs. direct Rd input – Cloud Data Architect

Mon, 05 Feb 2018 07:14:15 +0000

[…] Article originally published in Enchufa2.es: Documenting R packages: roxygen2 vs. direct Rd input. […]



Comentario en Documenting R packages: roxygen2 vs. direct Rd input por Documenting R packages: roxygen2 vs. direct Rd input – Mubashir Qasim

Sat, 03 Feb 2018 23:18:12 +0000

[…] article was first published on R – Enchufa2, and kindly contributed to […]



Comentario en Tidyverse and data.table, sitting side by side… and then base R walks in por Luis

Wed, 24 Jan 2018 10:01:34 +0000

Forgot about the masking. Thanks!



Comentario en Tidyverse and data.table, sitting side by side… and then base R walks in por Iñaki Úcar

Tue, 23 Jan 2018 22:21:12 +0000

Thanks, Luis, nice additions. But note that "as.Date" is masked by package zoo. So you really need to specify the namespace if you want to use the one from the base package. ;-)



Comentario en Tidyverse and data.table, sitting side by side… and then base R walks in por Luis

Tue, 23 Jan 2018 22:03:58 +0000

Hola Iñaki, Good work. I think the base version can be simplified, relying on defaults, as: polls_2016 <- read.delim("http:...") as the url is parsed automatically and read.delim assumes a tab. Probably using subset is clearer polls_2016 <- subset(polls_2016, sample_subpopulation %in% c("Adults","Likely Voters","Registered Voters")) And, given that as.Date is part of base pollsB$end_date <- as.Date(pollsB$end_date) and using: pollsB <- within(pollsb, { Clinton.Margin <- Clinton - Trump Clinton.Avg <- rollapply(Clinton.Margin, width=14, FUN=function(x){mean(x, na.rm=TRUE)}, by=1, partial=TRUE, fill=NA, align="right") }) is less wordy. Overall, whichever way one codes the example doesn't make a difference to the user from the point of view of performance. Readability can be vastly different though, for which I'm partial to the tidyverse. Saludos






Comentario en Tidyverse and data.table, sitting side by side… and then base R walks in por Tidyverse and data.table, sitting side by side… and then base R walks in - biva

Tue, 23 Jan 2018 17:10:44 +0000

[…] Article originally published in Enchufa2.es: Tidyverse and data.table, sitting side by side… and then base R walks in. […]