R devel - Feb 2003 - R/S indexing difference

Is this intentional?

R:
> x <- 1:7
> x[c(1, NA, 3)] <- -(4:6)
> x
[1] -4  2 -6  4  5  6  7

so NAs are treated as FALSE

S+6.1:
> x <- 1:7
> x[c(1, NA, 3)] <- -(4:6)
Warning messages:
  Replacement length not a multiple of number of elements to
	replace in: x[c(1, NA, 3)] <-  - (4:6)
> x
[1] -4  2 -5  4  5  6  7

and NAs are ignored.

-- 
Brian D. Ripley,                  ripley@stats.ox.ac.uk
Professor of Applied Statistics,  http://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/~ripley/
University of Oxford,             Tel:  +44 1865 272861 (self)
1 South Parks Road,                     +44 1865 272866 (PA)
Oxford OX1 3TG, UK                Fax:  +44 1865 272595

ripley@stats.ox.ac.uk writes:
> Is this intentional?
> 
> R:
> > x <- 1:7
> > x[c(1, NA, 3)] <- -(4:6)
> > x
> [1] -4  2 -6  4  5  6  7
> 
> so NAs are treated as FALSE
> 
> S+6.1:
> > x <- 1:7
> > x[c(1, NA, 3)] <- -(4:6)
> Warning messages:
>   Replacement length not a multiple of number of elements to
> 	replace in: x[c(1, NA, 3)] <-  - (4:6)
> > x
> [1] -4  2 -5  4  5  6  7
> 
> and NAs are ignored.
Hmm. Neither of the options look too safe to me...

A 3rd bit of logic would say that you should get a vector of
7 NAs since you're asking to put the -5 into an unknown location...

-- 
   O__  ---- Peter Dalgaard             Blegdamsvej 3  
  c/ /'_ --- Dept. of Biostatistics     2200 Cph. N   
 (*) \(*) -- University of Copenhagen   Denmark      Ph: (+45) 35327918
~~~~~~~~~~ - (p.dalgaard@biostat.ku.dk)             FAX: (+45) 35327907