>>>>> Mikael Jagan
>>>>> on Thu, 21 Sep 2023 00:47:39 -0400 writes:
> Revisiting this thread from April:
> https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-devel/2023-April/082545.html
> where the decision (not yet backported) was made for
> as.complex(NA_real_) to give NA_complex_ instead of
> complex(r=NA_real_, i=0), to be consistent with
> help("as.complex") and as.complex(NA) and
as.complex(NA_integer_).
> Was any consideration given to the alternative?
> That is, to changing as.complex(NA) and as.complex(NA_integer_) to
> give complex(r=NA_real_, i=0), consistent with
> as.complex(NA_real_), then amending help("as.complex")
> accordingly?
Hmm, as, from R-core, mostly I was involved, I admit to say "no",
to my knowledge the (above) alternative wasn't considered.
> The principle that
> Im(as.complex(<real=(double|integer|logical)>)) should be zero
> is quite fundamental, in my view, hence the "new" behaviour
> seems to really violate the principle of least surprise ...
of course "least surprise" is somewhat subjective. Still,
I clearly agree that the above would be one desirable property.
I think that any solution will lead to *some* surprise for some
cases, I think primarily because there are *many* different
values z for which is.na(z) is true, and in any case
NA_complex_ is only of the many.
I also agree with Mikael that we should reconsider the issue
that was raised by Davis Vaughan here ("on R-devel") last April.
> Another (but maybe weaker) argument is that
> double->complex coercions happen more often than
> logical->complex and integer->complex ones. Changing the
> behaviour of the more frequently performed coercion is
> more likely to affect code "out there".
> Yet another argument is that one expects
> identical(as.complex(NA_real_), NA_real_ + (0+0i))
> to be TRUE, i.e., that coercing from double to complex is
> equivalent to adding a complex zero. The new behaviour
> makes the above FALSE, since NA_real_ + (0+0i) gives
> complex(r=NA_real_, i=0).
No! --- To my own surprise (!) --- in current R-devel the above is TRUE,
and
NA_real_ + (0+0i) , the same as
NA_real_ + 0i , really gives complex(r=NA, i=NA) :
Using showC() from ?complex
showC <- function(z) noquote(sprintf("(R = %g, I = %g)", Re(z),
Im(z)))
we see (in R-devel) quite consistently
> showC(NA_real_ + 0i)
[1] (R = NA, I = NA)> showC(NA + 0i) # NA is 'logical'
[1] (R = NA, I = NA)>
where as in R 4.3.1 and "R-patched" -- *in*consistently
> showC(NA_real_ + 0i)
[1] (R = NA, I = 0)> showC(NA + 0i)
[1] (R = NA, I = NA)>
.... and honestly, I do not see *where* (and when) we changed
the underlying code (in arithmetic.c !?) in R-devel to *also*
produce NA_complex_ in such complex *arithmetic*
> Having said that, one might also (but more naively) expect
> identical(as.complex(as.double(NA_complex_)), NA_complex_)
> to be TRUE.
as in current R-devel
> Under my proposal it continues to be FALSE.
as in "R-release"
> Well, I'd prefer if it gave FALSE with a warning
> "imaginary parts discarded in coercion", but it seems that
> as.double(complex(r=a, i=b)) never warns when either of
> 'a' and 'b' is NA_real_ or NaN, even where
"information"
> {nonzero 'b'} is clearly lost ...
The question of *warning* here is related indeed, but I think
we should try to look at it only *secondary* to your first
proposal.
> Whatever decision is made about as.complex(NA_real_),
> maybe these points should be weighed before it becomes part of
> R-release ...
> Mikael
Indeed.
Can we please get other opinions / ideas here?
Thank you in advance for your thoughts!
Martin
---
PS:
Our *print()*ing of complex NA's ("NA" here meaning NA or NaN)
is also unsatisfactory, e.g. in the case where all entries of a
vector are NA in the sense of is.na(.), but their
Re() and Im() are not all NA:
showC <- function(z) noquote(sprintf("(R = %g, I = %g)", Re(z),
Im(z)))
z <- complex(, c(11, NA, NA), c(NA, 99, NA))
z
showC(z)
gives
> z
[1] NA NA NA
> showC(z)
[1] (R = 11, I = NA) (R = NA, I = 99) (R = NA, I = NA)
but that (printing of complex) *is* another issue,
in which we have the re-opened bugzilla PR#16752
==> https://bugs.r-project.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16752
on which we also worked during the R Sprint in Warwick three
weeks ago, and where I want to commit changes in any case {but
think we should change even a bit more than we got to during the
Sprint}.