Gianluca Baio

Ha --- even better then... That'd be cool if you are playing with it anyway? Thanks!

Hi Geoff, I don't think it's necessarily surprising... I *personally* find interactions with variables with multiple values rather complex to interpret and analyse anyway. So first of all, I wonder...

Thank you for this. Are you on the most recent version of `survHE`? I have made some substantial refactoring a while back (see [here](https://gianluca.statistica.it/blog/2022-01-18-survhe-light/)) and have split the package into...

Yes. The refactored version is 2.0. Thanks

Thanks @n8thangreen. As I understand, your suggested changes are purely cosmetics, though? So you'd rather have the two separate lines defining the call and args and then the `do.call` command?...

Ilaria, You're going to have to give me a lot more details here... Are you following the template instructions laid out in the [manual](https://github.com/giabaio/survHE/blob/master/inst/doc/survHE.pdf)? Also: I assume you are using...

I think this is the same solution I pointed out [here](https://github.com/giabaio/survHE/issues/31#issuecomment-640480882). That would do, I think.

I can see that interrupting the analysis because of errors in one of the models may be annoying... BUT: to be honest, if I'm doing *real* work, I would probably...

Under development - we are working on expanding the range of available models in `survHE`, particularly under the INLA framework (which could also handle semi-parametric and spline-like models and embedding...

The `info.rank` depends on: 1) the `BCEA` object (which in turn defines the comparison being made, even if you have multiple comparators) 2) the list (obtained by running the function...