[R] Problem with survival

[Dimitri Liakhovitski]

Glad we know where the problem lies now.
Dimitri

On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 11:55 AM, Terry Therneau <therneau at mayo.edu> wrote:
>  It is likely a problem with survival, since
>        2.9 merged in a large number of changes that had occured in my source
> tree that had not propogated to the R tree
>
>        my test suite doesn't have a test for this particular case (2 factors)
>
>        and - Murphy's law applies: although almost every possible case is
> covered in the test suite, any new error will hit an omitted combination of
> options with high probability.
>
>  I won't get to it for a few days though.  As with other errors it will result
> in both a fix and an addition to the test suite.
>
>  Thank you for a clear explanation of the problem.
>
>        Terry T.
>
>
> Dieter Menne wrote:
>  "Make sure that this is really a problem with different versions of R,
> not a problem of different versions of survival which was changed recently,
> without backward compatibility, so that for example many function of
> Design (Harrell) do not work currently."
>
>  The comment about backwards compatability is a little unfair.  The code for
> survival curves post Cox model finally added the (long requested) ability to
> accomodate case weights.  This added an argument to a C routine.  The Design
> package called my C routine directly. I was not aware of this, there is no
> promise in any R package that the not-meant-to-be-called-by-others C routines
> won't change, Frank H was told about this as soon as we found out, and he's
> working on it.
>
>
>
>



-- 
Dimitri Liakhovitski
MarketTools, Inc.
Dimitri.Liakhovitski at markettools.com