thr3ads.net - R devel - [Rd] Surprising length() of POSIXlt vector (PR#14073) [Nov 2009]

If this information is useful, please help other people find it:
Share via:

mark at celos.net

2009-Nov-19 22:30 UTC

[Rd] Surprising length() of POSIXlt vector (PR#14073)

Arrays of POSIXlt dates always return a length of 9.  This
is correct (they're really lists of vectors of seconds,
hours, and so forth), but other methods disguise them as
flat vectors, giving superficially surprising behaviour:

  strings <- paste('2009-1-', 1:31, sep='')
  dates <- strptime(strings, format="%Y-%m-%d")

  print(dates)
  #  [1] "2009-01-01" "2009-01-02" "2009-01-03"
"2009-01-04" "2009-01-05"
  #  [6] "2009-01-06" "2009-01-07" "2009-01-08"
"2009-01-09" "2009-01-10"
  # [11] "2009-01-11" "2009-01-12" "2009-01-13"
"2009-01-14" "2009-01-15"
  # [16] "2009-01-16" "2009-01-17" "2009-01-18"
"2009-01-19" "2009-01-20"
  # [21] "2009-01-21" "2009-01-22" "2009-01-23"
"2009-01-24" "2009-01-25"
  # [26] "2009-01-26" "2009-01-27" "2009-01-28"
"2009-01-29" "2009-01-30"
  # [31] "2009-01-31"

  print(length(dates))
  # [1] 9
  
  str(dates)
  # POSIXlt[1:9], format: "2009-01-01" "2009-01-02"
"2009-01-03" "2009-01-04" ...

  print(dates[20])
  # [1] "2009-01-20"

  print(length(dates[20]))
  # [1] 9

I've since realised that POSIXct makes date vectors easier,
but could we also have something like:

  length.POSIXlt <- function(x) { length(x$sec) }

in datetime.R, to avoid breaking functions (like the
str.POSIXt method) which use length() in this way?

Thanks,
Mark <><

------

Version:
 platform = i686-pc-linux-gnu
 arch = i686
 os = linux-gnu
 system = i686, linux-gnu
 status = 
 major = 2
 minor = 10.0
 year = 2009
 month = 10
 day = 26
 svn rev = 50208
 language = R
 version.string = R version 2.10.0 (2009-10-26)

Locale:
C

Search Path:
 .GlobalEnv, package:stats, package:graphics, package:grDevices, package:utils,
package:datasets, package:methods, Autoloads, package:base

Benilton Carvalho

2009-Nov-20 00:28 UTC

head link

[Rd] Surprising length() of POSIXlt vector (PR#14073)

Check the documentation and the archives. Not a bug. b

On Nov 19, 2009, at 8:30 PM, mark at celos.net wrote:
> Arrays of POSIXlt dates always return a length of 9.  This
> is correct (they're really lists of vectors of seconds,
> hours, and so forth), but other methods disguise them as
> flat vectors, giving superficially surprising behaviour:
>
>  strings <- paste('2009-1-', 1:31, sep='')
>  dates <- strptime(strings, format="%Y-%m-%d")
>
>  print(dates)
>  #  [1] "2009-01-01" "2009-01-02"
"2009-01-03" "2009-01-04"
> "2009-01-05"
>  #  [6] "2009-01-06" "2009-01-07"
"2009-01-08" "2009-01-09"
> "2009-01-10"
>  # [11] "2009-01-11" "2009-01-12"
"2009-01-13" "2009-01-14"
> "2009-01-15"
>  # [16] "2009-01-16" "2009-01-17"
"2009-01-18" "2009-01-19"
> "2009-01-20"
>  # [21] "2009-01-21" "2009-01-22"
"2009-01-23" "2009-01-24"
> "2009-01-25"
>  # [26] "2009-01-26" "2009-01-27"
"2009-01-28" "2009-01-29"
> "2009-01-30"
>  # [31] "2009-01-31"
>
>  print(length(dates))
>  # [1] 9
>
>  str(dates)
>  # POSIXlt[1:9], format: "2009-01-01" "2009-01-02"
"2009-01-03"
> "2009-01-04" ...
>
>  print(dates[20])
>  # [1] "2009-01-20"
>
>  print(length(dates[20]))
>  # [1] 9
>
> I've since realised that POSIXct makes date vectors easier,
> but could we also have something like:
>
>  length.POSIXlt <- function(x) { length(x$sec) }
>
> in datetime.R, to avoid breaking functions (like the
> str.POSIXt method) which use length() in this way?
>
> Thanks,
> Mark <><
>
> ------
>
> Version:
> platform = i686-pc-linux-gnu
> arch = i686
> os = linux-gnu
> system = i686, linux-gnu
> status > major = 2
> minor = 10.0
> year = 2009
> month = 10
> day = 26
> svn rev = 50208
> language = R
> version.string = R version 2.10.0 (2009-10-26)
>
> Locale:
> C
>
> Search Path:
> .GlobalEnv, package:stats, package:graphics, package:grDevices,  
> package:utils, package:datasets, package:methods, Autoloads,  
> package:base
>
> ______________________________________________
> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel

Steven McKinney

2009-Nov-20 02:19 UTC

head link

[Rd] Surprising length() of POSIXlt vector (PR#14073)

I've checked the archives, and this problem crops up every
few months going back for years.

What I was not able to find was an explanation of why a
function such as 
  length.POSIXlt <- function(x) { length(x$sec) }
is a Bad Idea, or what it would break.  listserv threads
seem to end without presenting an answer.  R News 2001
Vol 1/2 discusses that "lots of methods are needed..."
(page 11) but I haven't found discussion of why a length
method isn't feasible.

Can anyone clarify this, or point me at the right
archive or documentation source that discusses why
objects of class POSIXlt always need to return a
length of 9?

Thanks
Steve McKinney 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: r-devel-bounces at r-project.org [mailto:r-devel-bounces at r-
> project.org] On Behalf Of Benilton Carvalho
> Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 4:29 PM
> To: mark at celos.net
> Cc: r-devel at stat.math.ethz.ch
> Subject: Re: [Rd] Surprising length() of POSIXlt vector (PR#14073)
> 
> Check the documentation and the archives. Not a bug. b
> 
> On Nov 19, 2009, at 8:30 PM, mark at celos.net wrote:
> 
> > Arrays of POSIXlt dates always return a length of 9.  This
> > is correct (they're really lists of vectors of seconds,
> > hours, and so forth), but other methods disguise them as
> > flat vectors, giving superficially surprising behaviour:
> >
> >  strings <- paste('2009-1-', 1:31, sep='')
> >  dates <- strptime(strings, format="%Y-%m-%d")
> >
> >  print(dates)
> >  #  [1] "2009-01-01" "2009-01-02"
"2009-01-03" "2009-01-04"
> > "2009-01-05"
> >  #  [6] "2009-01-06" "2009-01-07"
"2009-01-08" "2009-01-09"
> > "2009-01-10"
> >  # [11] "2009-01-11" "2009-01-12"
"2009-01-13" "2009-01-14"
> > "2009-01-15"
> >  # [16] "2009-01-16" "2009-01-17"
"2009-01-18" "2009-01-19"
> > "2009-01-20"
> >  # [21] "2009-01-21" "2009-01-22"
"2009-01-23" "2009-01-24"
> > "2009-01-25"
> >  # [26] "2009-01-26" "2009-01-27"
"2009-01-28" "2009-01-29"
> > "2009-01-30"
> >  # [31] "2009-01-31"
> >
> >  print(length(dates))
> >  # [1] 9
> >
> >  str(dates)
> >  # POSIXlt[1:9], format: "2009-01-01" "2009-01-02"
"2009-01-03"
> > "2009-01-04" ...
> >
> >  print(dates[20])
> >  # [1] "2009-01-20"
> >
> >  print(length(dates[20]))
> >  # [1] 9
> >
> > I've since realised that POSIXct makes date vectors easier,
> > but could we also have something like:
> >
> >  length.POSIXlt <- function(x) { length(x$sec) }
> >
> > in datetime.R, to avoid breaking functions (like the
> > str.POSIXt method) which use length() in this way?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Mark <><
> >
> > ------
> >
> > Version:
> > platform = i686-pc-linux-gnu
> > arch = i686
> > os = linux-gnu
> > system = i686, linux-gnu
> > status > > major = 2
> > minor = 10.0
> > year = 2009
> > month = 10
> > day = 26
> > svn rev = 50208
> > language = R
> > version.string = R version 2.10.0 (2009-10-26)
> >
> > Locale:
> > C
> >
> > Search Path:
> > .GlobalEnv, package:stats, package:graphics, package:grDevices,
> > package:utils, package:datasets, package:methods, Autoloads,
> > package:base
> >
> > ______________________________________________
> > R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
> > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
> 
> ______________________________________________
> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel

Peter Dalgaard

2009-Nov-20 08:54 UTC

head link

[Rd] Surprising length() of POSIXlt vector (PR#14073)

mark at celos.net wrote:> Arrays of POSIXlt dates always return a length of 9.  This
> is correct (they're really lists of vectors of seconds,
> hours, and so forth), but other methods disguise them as
> flat vectors, giving superficially surprising behaviour:
> 
>   strings <- paste('2009-1-', 1:31, sep='')
>   dates <- strptime(strings, format="%Y-%m-%d")
> 
>   print(dates)
>   #  [1] "2009-01-01" "2009-01-02"
"2009-01-03" "2009-01-04" "2009-01-05"
>   #  [6] "2009-01-06" "2009-01-07"
"2009-01-08" "2009-01-09" "2009-01-10"
>   # [11] "2009-01-11" "2009-01-12"
"2009-01-13" "2009-01-14" "2009-01-15"
>   # [16] "2009-01-16" "2009-01-17"
"2009-01-18" "2009-01-19" "2009-01-20"
>   # [21] "2009-01-21" "2009-01-22"
"2009-01-23" "2009-01-24" "2009-01-25"
>   # [26] "2009-01-26" "2009-01-27"
"2009-01-28" "2009-01-29" "2009-01-30"
>   # [31] "2009-01-31"
> 
>   print(length(dates))
>   # [1] 9
>   
>   str(dates)
>   # POSIXlt[1:9], format: "2009-01-01" "2009-01-02"
"2009-01-03" "2009-01-04" ...
> 
>   print(dates[20])
>   # [1] "2009-01-20"
> 
>   print(length(dates[20]))
>   # [1] 9
> 
> I've since realised that POSIXct makes date vectors easier,
> but could we also have something like:
> 
>   length.POSIXlt <- function(x) { length(x$sec) }
> 
> in datetime.R, to avoid breaking functions (like the
> str.POSIXt method) which use length() in this way?

[You need "wishlist" in the title for this sort of stuff.]

I'd be wary of this. Just the other day we found that identical() broke 
on some objects because a package had length() redefined as a class 
method. I.e. the danger is that something wants to use length() with its 
original low-level interpretation.

> Thanks,
> Mark <><
> 
> ------
> 
> Version:
>  platform = i686-pc-linux-gnu
>  arch = i686
>  os = linux-gnu
>  system = i686, linux-gnu
>  status = 
>  major = 2
>  minor = 10.0
>  year = 2009
>  month = 10
>  day = 26
>  svn rev = 50208
>  language = R
>  version.string = R version 2.10.0 (2009-10-26)
> 
> Locale:
> C
> 
> Search Path:
>  .GlobalEnv, package:stats, package:graphics, package:grDevices,
package:utils, package:datasets, package:methods, Autoloads, package:base
> 
> ______________________________________________
> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel

-- 
    O__  ---- Peter Dalgaard             ?ster Farimagsgade 5, Entr.B
   c/ /'_ --- Dept. of Biostatistics     PO Box 2099, 1014 Cph. K
  (*) \(*) -- University of Copenhagen   Denmark      Ph:  (+45) 35327918
~~~~~~~~~~ - (p.dalgaard at biostat.ku.dk)              FAX: (+45) 35327907

mark at celos.net

2009-Nov-20 10:05 UTC

head link

[Rd] Surprising length() of POSIXlt vector (PR#14073)

Benilton Carvalho writes:> I'm no expert on this, but my understanding is that the choice was
> to stick to the definition.
> 
> The help file for length() [1] says:
> 
> "For vectors (including lists) and factors the length is the number
> of elements."
> 
> The help file for POSIXlt [2] (for example) says:
> 
> "Class ?"POSIXlt"? is a named list of vectors representing
(...)"
> 
> and then lists the 9 elements (sec / min / hour / mday / mon / year
> / wday / yday / isdst).
> 
> So, by [1] length of POSIXlt objects is 9, because it "is a named
> list of vectors representing (...)".
Thanks, all.  Yes, I'd already read both, and it's obviously
true that a length() of 9 is correct (as I said up-front).

The difficulty is that some functions -- importantly
including "[" -- already have methods which make POSIXlt
behave like a vector.  The documentation for POSIXlt just
says it's a list of 9 elements: it mentions methods for
addition etc, but AFAICT it doesn't say that subsetting won't
behave is "["'s help says for a list-like object.

In the end, "[" sees a different length to "[[" and
"$"
here, so a length.POSIXlt() just shuffles the issue around.

Anyhow, I somehow missed there have been other PRs on this,
including discussion on r-devel of "[" and logical vs physical
length() under PR#10507.  I'm sorry for being repetitive.

Mark <><

maechler at stat.math.ethz.ch

2009-Nov-20 18:05 UTC

head link

[Rd] Surprising length() of POSIXlt vector (PR#14073)

>>>>> "PD" == Peter Dalgaard <p.dalgaard at
biostat.ku.dk>
>>>>>     on Fri, 20 Nov 2009 09:54:34 +0100 writes:
    PD> mark at celos.net wrote:
    >> Arrays of POSIXlt dates always return a length of 9.  This
    >> is correct (they're really lists of vectors of seconds,
    >> hours, and so forth), but other methods disguise them as
    >> flat vectors, giving superficially surprising behaviour:
    >> 
    >> strings <- paste('2009-1-', 1:31, sep='')
    >> dates <- strptime(strings, format="%Y-%m-%d")
    >> 
    >> print(dates)
    >> #  [1] "2009-01-01" "2009-01-02"
"2009-01-03" "2009-01-04" "2009-01-05"
    >> #  [6] "2009-01-06" "2009-01-07"
"2009-01-08" "2009-01-09" "2009-01-10"
    >> # [11] "2009-01-11" "2009-01-12"
"2009-01-13" "2009-01-14" "2009-01-15"
    >> # [16] "2009-01-16" "2009-01-17"
"2009-01-18" "2009-01-19" "2009-01-20"
    >> # [21] "2009-01-21" "2009-01-22"
"2009-01-23" "2009-01-24" "2009-01-25"
    >> # [26] "2009-01-26" "2009-01-27"
"2009-01-28" "2009-01-29" "2009-01-30"
    >> # [31] "2009-01-31"
    >> 
    >> print(length(dates))
    >> # [1] 9
    >> 
    >> str(dates)
    >> # POSIXlt[1:9], format: "2009-01-01"
"2009-01-02" "2009-01-03" "2009-01-04" ...
    >> 
    >> print(dates[20])
    >> # [1] "2009-01-20"
    >> 
    >> print(length(dates[20]))
    >> # [1] 9
    >> 
    >> I've since realised that POSIXct makes date vectors easier,
    >> but could we also have something like:
    >> 
    >> length.POSIXlt <- function(x) { length(x$sec) }
    >> 
    >> in datetime.R, to avoid breaking functions (like the
    >> str.POSIXt method) which use length() in this way?

    PD> [You need "wishlist" in the title for this sort of stuff.]

    PD> I'd be wary of this. Just the other day we found that identical()
broke
    PD> on some objects because a package had length() redefined as a class 
    PD> method. I.e. the danger is that something wants to use length() with
its
    PD> original low-level interpretation.

Yes, of course.
and Romain mentioned  str().  Note that we have needed to define
a "POSIXt" method for str(), partly just *because* of the
current anomaly:
As Tony Plate, e.g., has argued, entirely correctly in my view,
the anomaly is that    length() and "["   are not compatible;
and while I think no R language definition says that they should
be, I still believe that you need very good reasons for them to
be incompatible, as they are for POSIXlt.

In the current case, for me the only good reason is backwards
compatibility.
My personal taste would be to change it and see what happens.
I would be willing to clean up after that change within R 'base'
and all packages I am coauthoring (quite a few), but of course
there are still a thousand more R packages..
My strong bet would be that less than 1% would be affected,
and my point guess for the percentage affected would be
rather in the order of  1/1000.

The question is if we (you too!), the R community, are willing to
bear the load of cleanup, after such a change which would really
*improve* consistency of that small corner of R.
For me, as I indicated above, I am willing to bear my share
(and actually have got it ready for R-devel)

Martin Maechler, ETH Zurich (and R Core Team)

maechler at stat.math.ethz.ch

2009-Nov-30 13:10 UTC

head link

[Rd] Surprising length() of POSIXlt vector (PR#14073)

>>>>> Tony Plate <tplate at acm.org>
>>>>>     on Sun, 22 Nov 2009 10:21:33 -0600 writes:
    > maechler at stat.math.ethz.ch wrote:
    >>>>>>> "PD" == Peter Dalgaard <p.dalgaard
at biostat.ku.dk>
    >>>>>>> on Fri, 20 Nov 2009 09:54:34 +0100 writes:
    >>>>>>> 
    >> 
    PD> mark at celos.net wrote:
    >> >> Arrays of POSIXlt dates always return a length of 9.  This
    >> >> is correct (they're really lists of vectors of
seconds,
    >> >> hours, and so forth), but other methods disguise them as
    >> >> flat vectors, giving superficially surprising behaviour:
    >> >> 
    >> >> strings <- paste('2009-1-', 1:31,
sep='')
    >> >> dates <- strptime(strings, format="%Y-%m-%d")
    >> >> 
    >> >> print(dates)
    >> >> #  [1] "2009-01-01" "2009-01-02"
"2009-01-03" "2009-01-04" "2009-01-05"
    >> >> #  [6] "2009-01-06" "2009-01-07"
"2009-01-08" "2009-01-09" "2009-01-10"
    >> >> # [11] "2009-01-11" "2009-01-12"
"2009-01-13" "2009-01-14" "2009-01-15"
    >> >> # [16] "2009-01-16" "2009-01-17"
"2009-01-18" "2009-01-19" "2009-01-20"
    >> >> # [21] "2009-01-21" "2009-01-22"
"2009-01-23" "2009-01-24" "2009-01-25"
    >> >> # [26] "2009-01-26" "2009-01-27"
"2009-01-28" "2009-01-29" "2009-01-30"
    >> >> # [31] "2009-01-31"
    >> >> 
    >> >> print(length(dates))
    >> >> # [1] 9
    >> >> 
    >> >> str(dates)
    >> >> # POSIXlt[1:9], format: "2009-01-01"
"2009-01-02" "2009-01-03" "2009-01-04" ...
    >> >> 
    >> >> print(dates[20])
    >> >> # [1] "2009-01-20"
    >> >> 
    >> >> print(length(dates[20]))
    >> >> # [1] 9
    >> >> 
    >> >> I've since realised that POSIXct makes date vectors
easier,
    >> >> but could we also have something like:
    >> >> 
    >> >> length.POSIXlt <- function(x) { length(x$sec) }
    >> >> 
    >> >> in datetime.R, to avoid breaking functions (like the
    >> >> str.POSIXt method) which use length() in this way?
    >> 
    >> 
    PD> [You need "wishlist" in the title for this sort of stuff.]
    >> 
    PD> I'd be wary of this. Just the other day we found that identical()
broke
    PD> on some objects because a package had length() redefined as a class 
    PD> method. I.e. the danger is that something wants to use length() with
its
    PD> original low-level interpretation.
    >> 
    >> Yes, of course.
    >> and Romain mentioned  str().  Note that we have needed to define
    >> a "POSIXt" method for str(), partly just *because* of the
    >> current anomaly:
    >> As Tony Plate, e.g., has argued, entirely correctly in my view,
    >> the anomaly is that    length() and "["   are not
compatible;
    >> and while I think no R language definition says that they should
    >> be, I still believe that you need very good reasons for them to
    >> be incompatible, as they are for POSIXlt.
    >> 
    >> In the current case, for me the only good reason is backwards
    >> compatibility.
    >> My personal taste would be to change it and see what happens.
    >> I would be willing to clean up after that change within R
'base'
    >> and all packages I am coauthoring (quite a few), but of course
    >> there are still a thousand more R packages..
    >> My strong bet would be that less than 1% would be affected,
    >> and my point guess for the percentage affected would be
    >> rather in the order of  1/1000.
    >> 
    >> The question is if we (you too!), the R community, are willing to
    >> bear the load of cleanup, after such a change which would really
    >> *improve* consistency of that small corner of R.
    >> For me, as I indicated above, I am willing to bear my share
    >> (and actually have got it ready for R-devel)

    > Would be great to see this change!  Surely the right way to do things
is
    > that functions that wish to examine the low level structure of S3 
    > objects should use unclass() before looking at length and elements, so 
    > there's no reason for a class such as POSIXlt to not provide a 
    > logical-level length method.

I have now committed such a change to R-devel (only!), revision 50616.
Thank you and Gabor and others for supporting this.

As said here earlier in this thread:  We must be ready to see
that this change can break other code that implicitly assumed
the "old" i.e.  pre R-devel (2.11.x) behavior.

As I also said earlier, I'm prepared to help package authors to
fix their code accordingly,
but I'd be grateful to be notified *if* problems surface from
this.

Martin Maechler, ETH Zurich


    > At a broader level, when I've designed vector/array classes,
I've
    > wondered what methods I should define, but have been unable to find any
    > specification of a set of methods.  When one thinks about it, there are
    > actually quite a set of strongly-connected methods with quite a lot a 
    > behaviors to implement, e.g., length, '[' (with logical,
numeric &
    > character indicies, including 0 and NA possibilities), '[[',
'c', and
    > then optionally 'names', and then for multi-dim objects,
'dim',
    > 'dimnames', etc.  Consequently, last time this discussion on
length and
    > '[' methods POSIXlt came up, I wrote a function that
automatically
    > tested behavior of all these methods on a specified class and
summarizes
    > the behavior.  If anyone is interested in such a thing, I'd be
happy to
    > dig it up and distribute it (I'd attach it to this message, but
I'm on
    > vacation and don't have access to the compute that I think it's
on.)

    > -- Tony Plate

    >> Martin Maechler, ETH Zurich (and R Core Team)
    >> 
    >> ______________________________________________
    >> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
    >> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
    >> 
    >> 

    > ______________________________________________
    > R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
    > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel

Seemingly Similar Threads

Search for more apparently analagous threads

R devel - Nov 2009 - Surprising length() of POSIXlt vector (PR#14073)

[Rd] Surprising length() of POSIXlt vector (PR#14073)

[Rd] Surprising length() of POSIXlt vector (PR#14073)

[Rd] Surprising length() of POSIXlt vector (PR#14073)

[Rd] Surprising length() of POSIXlt vector (PR#14073)

[Rd] Surprising length() of POSIXlt vector (PR#14073)

[Rd] Surprising length() of POSIXlt vector (PR#14073)

[Rd] Surprising length() of POSIXlt vector (PR#14073)

Seemingly Similar Threads