We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Not entirely satisfied how we chose side by side vs. unified. Here is an example where unified would have made more sense
< .ref > .new @@ 1,6 @@ @@ 1,6 @@ intercept slope intercept slope < -1717.000000 101.000000 > -3.541306e+13 7.012486e+11 rsq rsq < 0.938679 > 9.386790e-01 attr(,"class") attr(,"class") [1] "fastlm" [1] "fastlm"
vs.
< .ref > .new @@ 1,4 / 1,4 @@ intercept slope rsq < -1717.000000 101.000000 0.938679 > -3.541306e+13 7.012486e+11 9.386790e-01 attr(,"class") [1] "fastlm"
Need some metric that computes percentage of lines that need to be wrapped or some such, but this may require two passes.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
No branches or pull requests
Not entirely satisfied how we chose side by side vs. unified. Here is an example where unified would have made more sense
vs.
Need some metric that computes percentage of lines that need to be wrapped or some such, but this may require two passes.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: