From Prof Brian Ripley <ripley@stats.ox.ac.uk>  Fri Feb 11 17:42:20 2000
From: Prof Brian Ripley <ripley@stats.ox.ac.uk> (Prof Brian Ripley)
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 17:42:20 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: [Rd] new chron problems in RW0990
Message-ID: <200002111742.RAA24874@toucan.stats.ox.ac.uk>


> From: "Jens Oehlschlgel-Akiyoshi" <jens.oehlschlaegel-akiyoshi@mdfactory.de>
> Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 16:56:36 +0100
> 
> In RW0901 I could
> 
> > dates("01/01/2000")
> [1] 01/01/100
> 
> where only the printing was wrong, but the double numeric representation of
> the chron object was calculated correctly
> 
> but now in RW0990

The difference is not in rw0901/rw0990 but in the version of chron
in use.  There is an rw0901 version of chron 2.2-2 too.

> > dates("01/01/2000")
> Error in fun(yy, ...) : must be 2-digit (numeric) year specification
> 
> and also the followig doesn't help
> 
> > dates("01/01/2000", format="dd/mm/yyyy")
> Error in names<-.default(*tmp*, value = fnames) :
>    names attribute must be the same length as the vector
> In addition: Warning message:
> wrong number of fields in entry(ies) 1 in: unpaste(dates., sep = fmt$sep,
> fnames = fmt$periods, nfields = 3)
> 
> Shall I send a bug report or is this a known problem?

That happens for me on Unix.  If there is not already a bug report, send one.


-- 
Brian D. Ripley,                  ripley@stats.ox.ac.uk
Professor of Applied Statistics,  http://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/~ripley/
University of Oxford,             Tel:  +44 1865 272861 (self)
1 South Parks Road,                     +44 1865 272860 (secr)
Oxford OX1 3TG, UK                Fax:  +44 1865 272595

-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
r-devel mailing list -- Read http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.html
Send "info", "help", or "[un]subscribe"
(in the "body", not the subject !)  To: r-devel-request@stat.math.ethz.ch
_._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._


[Rd] new chron problems in RW0990
Prof Brian Ripley