John Chambers
2015-Dec-19 18:09 UTC
[Rd] For integer vectors, `as(x, "numeric")` has no effect.
As I tried to say on Dec. 11, there are two levels of "fix":
1. The fix to the complaint in the OP's subject heading is to conform to
the default third argument, strict=TRUE: as(1L, "numeric") == 1.0
This generates some incompatibilities, as for classes that extend
"numeric". But still leaves class(1.0) "numeric" and
typeof(1.0) "double".
The workaround for class definitions that really need NOT to coerce integers to
double is to define a class union, say
setClassUnion("Number", c("numeric", "integer"))
and use that for the slot.
2. The "right" concept is arguably that "numeric" is a
virtual class with two subclasses, "double" and "integer".
Given a time machine back to < 1998, that would be my choice. But already in
the 1998 S4 book, "numeric" was equated with "double".
so, there it is, IMO. This is what you get with a successful open-source
language: Much hassle to do the "right thing" after the fact and the
more change, the more hassle.
Fix 1. seems to me an actual bug fix, so my inclination would be to go with that
(on r-devel), advertising that it may change the effective definition of some
classes.
But I can sympathize with choosing 1, 2 or neither.
John
PS: Until Jan. 4, I may be even poorer at replying than usual, while getting
the current book off to the publisher.
On Dec 19, 2015, at 3:32 AM, Martin Maechler <maechler at
stat.math.ethz.ch> wrote:
>>>>>> Martin Maechler <maechler at stat.math.ethz.ch>
>>>>>> on Sat, 12 Dec 2015 10:32:51 +0100 writes:
>
>>>>>> John Chambers <jmc at r-project.org>
>>>>>> on Fri, 11 Dec 2015 10:11:05 -0800 writes:
>
>>> Somehow, the most obvious fixes are always back-incompatible these
days.
>>> The example intrigued me, so I looked into it a bit (should have
been doing something else, but ....)
>
>>> You're right that this is the proverbial
thin-edge-of-the-wedge.
>
>>> The problem is in setDataPart(), which will be called whenever a
class extends one of the vector types.
>
>>> It does
>>> as(value, dataClass)
>>> The key point is that the third argument to as(), strict=TRUE by
default. So, yes, the change will cause all integer vectors to become double
when the class extends "numeric". Generally, strict=TRUE makes sense
here and of course changing THAT would open up yet more incompatibilities.
>
>>> For back compatibility, one would have to have some special code in
setDataPart() for the case of integer/numeric.
>
>>> John
>
>>> (Historically, the original sin was probably not making a
distinction between "numeric" as a virtual class and
"double" as a type/class.)
>
>> Yes, indeed. In the mean time, I've seen more cases where
>> "the change will cause all integer vectors to become double when
the class extends "numeric".
>> seems detrimental.
>
>> OTOH, I still think we could go in the right direction ---
>> hopefully along the wishes of bioconductor S4 development, see
>> Martin Morgan's e-mail:
>
>> [This is all S4 - only; should not much affect base R / S3]
>> Currently, "integer" is a subclass of "numeric"
and so the
>> "integer become double" part seems unwanted to me.
>> OTOH, it would really make sense to more formally
>> have the basic subclasses of "numeric" to be
"integer" and "double",
>> and to let as(*, "double") to become different to as(*,
"numeric")
>> [Again, this is just for the S4 classes and as() coercions, *not* e.g.
>> for as.numeric() / as.double() !]
>
>> In the DEPRECATED part of the NEWS for R 2.7.0 (April 2008) we
>> have had
>
>> o The S4 pseudo-classes "single" and double have been
removed.
>> (The S4 class for a REALSXP is "numeric": for
back-compatibility
>> as(x, "double") coerces to "numeric".)
>
>> I think the removal of "single" was fine, but in hindsight,
>> maybe the removal of "double" -- which was partly broken then
--
>> possibly could rather have been a fixup of "double" along the
>> following
>
>> Current "thought experiment proposal" :
>
>> 1) "numeric" := {"integer", "double"} {
class - subclasses }
>> 2) as(1L, "numeric") continues to return 1L .. since integer
is
>> one case of "numeric"
>> 3) as(1L, "double") newly returns 1.0 {and in fact would
be
>> "equivalent" to as.double(1L)}
>
>> After the above change, S4 as(*, "double") would correspond
to S3 as.double
>> but as(*, "numeric") would continue to differ from
>> as.numeric(*), the former *not* changing integers to double.
>
>> Martin
>
> Also note that e.g.
>
> class(pi) would return "double" instead of
"numeric"
>
> and this will break all the bad programming style usages of
>
> if(class(x) == "numeric")
>
> which I tend to see in gazillions of user and even package codes
> This bad (aka error prone !) because "correct" usage would be
>
> if(inherits(x, "numeric"))
>
> and that of course would *not* break after the change above.
>
> - - - -
>
> A week later, I'm still pretty convinced it would be worth going
> in the direction proposed above.
>
> But I was actually hoping for some encouragement or "mental
support"...
> or then to hear why you think the proposition is not good or not
> viable ...
>
>
>>> On Dec 11, 2015, at 1:25 AM, Martin Maechler <maechler at
stat.math.ethz.ch> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>> Martin Maechler <maechler at
stat.math.ethz.ch>
>>>>>>>>> on Tue, 8 Dec 2015 15:25:21 +0100 writes:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> John Chambers <jmc at r-project.org>
>>>>>>>>> on Mon, 7 Dec 2015 16:05:59 -0800 writes:
>>>>
>>>>>> We do need an explicit method here, I think.
>>>>>> The issue is that as() uses methods for the generic
function coerce() but cannot use inheritance in the usual way (if it did, you
would be immediately back with no change, since "integer" inherits
from "numeric").
>>>>
>>>>>> Copying in the general method for coercing to
"numeric" as an explicit method for "integer" gives the
expected result:
>>>>
>>>>>>> setMethod("coerce",
c("integer", "numeric"), getMethod("coerce",
c("ANY", "numeric")))
>>>>>> [1] "coerce"
>>>>>>> typeof(as(1L, "numeric"))
>>>>>> [1] "double"
>>>>
>>>>>> Seems like a reasonable addition to the code, unless
someone sees a problem.
>>>>>> John
>>>>
>>>>> I guess that that some package checks (in CRAN + Bioc + ...
-
>>>>> land) will break,
>>>>> but I still think we should add such a coercion to R.
>>>>
>>>>> Martin
>>>>
>>>> Hmm... I've tried to add the above to R
>>>> and do notice that there are consequences that may be larger
than
>>>> anticipated:
>>>>
>>>> Here is example code:
>>>>
>>>> myN <- setClass("myN",
contains="numeric")
>>>> myNid <- setClass("myNid",
contains="numeric", representation(id="character"))
>>>> NN <- setClass("NN",
representation(x="numeric"))
>>>>
>>>> (m1 <- myN (1:3))
>>>> (m2 <- myNid(1:3, id = "i3"))
>>>> tools::assertError(NN (1:3))# in all R versions
>>>>
>>>> ## # current R | new R
>>>> ## # -----------|----------
>>>> class(getDataPart(m1)) # integer | numeric
>>>> class(getDataPart(m2)) # integer | numeric
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In other words, with the above setting, the traditional
>>>> gentleperson's agreement in S and R,
>>>>
>>>> __ "numeric" sometimes conveniently means
"integer" or "double" __
>>>>
>>>> will be slightly less often used ... which of course may be a
>>>> very good thing.
>>>>
>>>> However, it breaks strict back compatibility also in cases
where
>>>> the previous behavior may have been preferable:
>>>> After all integer vectors need only have the space of doubles.
>>>>
>>>> Shall we still go ahead and do apply this change to R-devel
>>>> and then all package others will be willing to update where
necessary?
>>>>
>>>> As this may affect the many hundreds of bioconductor packages
>>>> using S4 classes, I am -- exceptionally -- cross posting to the
>>>> bioc-devel list.
>>>>
>>>> Martin Maechler
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> On Dec 7, 2015, at 3:37 PM, Benjamin Tyner <btyner
at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> Perhaps it is not that surprising, given that
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> mode(1L)
>>>>>>> [1] "numeric"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> is.numeric(1L)
>>>>>>> [1] TRUE
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On the other hand, this is curious, to say the
least:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> is.double(as(1L, "double"))
>>>>>>> [1] FALSE
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here's the surprising behavior:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> x <- 1L
>>>>>> xx <- as(x, "numeric")
>>>>>> class(xx)
>>>>>> ## [1] "integer"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It occurs because the call to `as(x,
"numeric")` dispatches the coerce
>>>>>> S4 method for the signature `c("integer",
"numeric")`, whose body is
>>>>>> copied in below.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> function (from, to = "numeric", strict =
TRUE)
>>>>>> if (strict) {
>>>>>> class(from) <- "numeric"
>>>>>> from
>>>>>> } else from
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This in turn does nothing, even when strict=TRUE,
because that
>>>>>> assignment to class "numeric" has no effect:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> x <- 10L
>>>>>> class(x) <- "numeric"
>>>>>> class(x)
>>>>>> [1] "integer"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is this the desired behavior for `as(x,
"numeric")`?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ______________________________________________
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>> ______________________________________________
>>>>> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
>>>>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
Hervé Pagès
2015-Dec-26 07:51 UTC
[Rd] [Bioc-devel] For integer vectors, `as(x, "numeric")` has no effect.
Or maybe the "right" concept is that "numeric" is a virtual
class
with 3 subclasses: "complex", "double", and
"integer". Anyway it's
probably too late for implementing the "right" concept so it
doesn't
really matter.
Thanks Martin for offering to fix the as(1L, "numeric") bug. Very
much appreciated. I guess that means fixing the class(x) <-
"numeric"
bug on integer vectors:
> x <- 1L
> class(x) <- "numeric"
> class(x)
[1] "integer"
My wish for 2016: that selectMethod() always tells the truth. For
example selectMethod("coerce", c("integer",
"numeric")) doesn't
in a fresh session, only after you call as(1L, "numeric")). Full
story here:
https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-devel/2010-April/057098.html
Thanks,
H.
On 12/19/2015 10:09 AM, John Chambers wrote:> As I tried to say on Dec. 11, there are two levels of "fix":
>
> 1. The fix to the complaint in the OP's subject heading is to conform
to the default third argument, strict=TRUE: as(1L, "numeric") == 1.0
>
> This generates some incompatibilities, as for classes that extend
"numeric". But still leaves class(1.0) "numeric" and
typeof(1.0) "double".
>
> The workaround for class definitions that really need NOT to coerce
integers to double is to define a class union, say
> setClassUnion("Number", c("numeric",
"integer"))
> and use that for the slot.
>
> 2. The "right" concept is arguably that "numeric" is a
virtual class with two subclasses, "double" and "integer".
Given a time machine back to < 1998, that would be my choice. But already in
the 1998 S4 book, "numeric" was equated with "double".
>
> so, there it is, IMO. This is what you get with a successful open-source
language: Much hassle to do the "right thing" after the fact and the
more change, the more hassle.
>
> Fix 1. seems to me an actual bug fix, so my inclination would be to go with
that (on r-devel), advertising that it may change the effective definition of
some classes.
>
> But I can sympathize with choosing 1, 2 or neither.
>
> John
>
> PS: Until Jan. 4, I may be even poorer at replying than usual, while
getting the current book off to the publisher.
>
> On Dec 19, 2015, at 3:32 AM, Martin Maechler <maechler at
stat.math.ethz.ch> wrote:
>
>>>>>>> Martin Maechler <maechler at
stat.math.ethz.ch>
>>>>>>> on Sat, 12 Dec 2015 10:32:51 +0100 writes:
>>
>>>>>>> John Chambers <jmc at r-project.org>
>>>>>>> on Fri, 11 Dec 2015 10:11:05 -0800 writes:
>>
>>>> Somehow, the most obvious fixes are always back-incompatible
these days.
>>>> The example intrigued me, so I looked into it a bit (should
have been doing something else, but ....)
>>
>>>> You're right that this is the proverbial
thin-edge-of-the-wedge.
>>
>>>> The problem is in setDataPart(), which will be called whenever
a class extends one of the vector types.
>>
>>>> It does
>>>> as(value, dataClass)
>>>> The key point is that the third argument to as(), strict=TRUE
by default. So, yes, the change will cause all integer vectors to become double
when the class extends "numeric". Generally, strict=TRUE makes sense
here and of course changing THAT would open up yet more incompatibilities.
>>
>>>> For back compatibility, one would have to have some special
code in setDataPart() for the case of integer/numeric.
>>
>>>> John
>>
>>>> (Historically, the original sin was probably not making a
distinction between "numeric" as a virtual class and
"double" as a type/class.)
>>
>>> Yes, indeed. In the mean time, I've seen more cases where
>>> "the change will cause all integer vectors to become double
when the class extends "numeric".
>>> seems detrimental.
>>
>>> OTOH, I still think we could go in the right direction ---
>>> hopefully along the wishes of bioconductor S4 development, see
>>> Martin Morgan's e-mail:
>>
>>> [This is all S4 - only; should not much affect base R / S3]
>>> Currently, "integer" is a subclass of
"numeric" and so the
>>> "integer become double" part seems unwanted to me.
>>> OTOH, it would really make sense to more formally
>>> have the basic subclasses of "numeric" to be
"integer" and "double",
>>> and to let as(*, "double") to become different to as(*,
"numeric")
>>> [Again, this is just for the S4 classes and as() coercions, *not*
e.g.
>>> for as.numeric() / as.double() !]
>>
>>> In the DEPRECATED part of the NEWS for R 2.7.0 (April 2008) we
>>> have had
>>
>>> o The S4 pseudo-classes "single" and double have been
removed.
>>> (The S4 class for a REALSXP is "numeric": for
back-compatibility
>>> as(x, "double") coerces to "numeric".)
>>
>>> I think the removal of "single" was fine, but in
hindsight,
>>> maybe the removal of "double" -- which was partly broken
then --
>>> possibly could rather have been a fixup of "double" along
the
>>> following
>>
>>> Current "thought experiment proposal" :
>>
>>> 1) "numeric" := {"integer", "double"}
{ class - subclasses }
>>> 2) as(1L, "numeric") continues to return 1L .. since
integer is
>>> one case of "numeric"
>>> 3) as(1L, "double") newly returns 1.0 {and in fact
would be
>>> "equivalent" to as.double(1L)}
>>
>>> After the above change, S4 as(*, "double") would
correspond to S3 as.double
>>> but as(*, "numeric") would continue to differ from
>>> as.numeric(*), the former *not* changing integers to double.
>>
>>> Martin
>>
>> Also note that e.g.
>>
>> class(pi) would return "double" instead of
"numeric"
>>
>> and this will break all the bad programming style usages of
>>
>> if(class(x) == "numeric")
>>
>> which I tend to see in gazillions of user and even package codes
>> This bad (aka error prone !) because "correct" usage would
be
>>
>> if(inherits(x, "numeric"))
>>
>> and that of course would *not* break after the change above.
>>
>> - - - -
>>
>> A week later, I'm still pretty convinced it would be worth going
>> in the direction proposed above.
>>
>> But I was actually hoping for some encouragement or "mental
support"...
>> or then to hear why you think the proposition is not good or not
>> viable ...
>>
>>
>>>> On Dec 11, 2015, at 1:25 AM, Martin Maechler <maechler at
stat.math.ethz.ch> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>> Martin Maechler <maechler at
stat.math.ethz.ch>
>>>>>>>>>> on Tue, 8 Dec 2015 15:25:21 +0100
writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> John Chambers <jmc at
r-project.org>
>>>>>>>>>> on Mon, 7 Dec 2015 16:05:59 -0800
writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> We do need an explicit method here, I think.
>>>>>>> The issue is that as() uses methods for the generic
function coerce() but cannot use inheritance in the usual way (if it did, you
would be immediately back with no change, since "integer" inherits
from "numeric").
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Copying in the general method for coercing to
"numeric" as an explicit method for "integer" gives the
expected result:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> setMethod("coerce",
c("integer", "numeric"), getMethod("coerce",
c("ANY", "numeric")))
>>>>>>> [1] "coerce"
>>>>>>>> typeof(as(1L, "numeric"))
>>>>>>> [1] "double"
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Seems like a reasonable addition to the code,
unless someone sees a problem.
>>>>>>> John
>>>>>
>>>>>> I guess that that some package checks (in CRAN + Bioc +
... -
>>>>>> land) will break,
>>>>>> but I still think we should add such a coercion to R.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Martin
>>>>>
>>>>> Hmm... I've tried to add the above to R
>>>>> and do notice that there are consequences that may be
larger than
>>>>> anticipated:
>>>>>
>>>>> Here is example code:
>>>>>
>>>>> myN <- setClass("myN",
contains="numeric")
>>>>> myNid <- setClass("myNid",
contains="numeric", representation(id="character"))
>>>>> NN <- setClass("NN",
representation(x="numeric"))
>>>>>
>>>>> (m1 <- myN (1:3))
>>>>> (m2 <- myNid(1:3, id = "i3"))
>>>>> tools::assertError(NN (1:3))# in all R versions
>>>>>
>>>>> ## # current R | new R
>>>>> ## # -----------|----------
>>>>> class(getDataPart(m1)) # integer | numeric
>>>>> class(getDataPart(m2)) # integer | numeric
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In other words, with the above setting, the traditional
>>>>> gentleperson's agreement in S and R,
>>>>>
>>>>> __ "numeric" sometimes conveniently means
"integer" or "double" __
>>>>>
>>>>> will be slightly less often used ... which of course may be
a
>>>>> very good thing.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, it breaks strict back compatibility also in cases
where
>>>>> the previous behavior may have been preferable:
>>>>> After all integer vectors need only have the space of
doubles.
>>>>>
>>>>> Shall we still go ahead and do apply this change to R-devel
>>>>> and then all package others will be willing to update where
necessary?
>>>>>
>>>>> As this may affect the many hundreds of bioconductor
packages
>>>>> using S4 classes, I am -- exceptionally -- cross posting to
the
>>>>> bioc-devel list.
>>>>>
>>>>> Martin Maechler
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Dec 7, 2015, at 3:37 PM, Benjamin Tyner
<btyner at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Perhaps it is not that surprising, given that
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> mode(1L)
>>>>>>>> [1] "numeric"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> is.numeric(1L)
>>>>>>>> [1] TRUE
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On the other hand, this is curious, to say the
least:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> is.double(as(1L, "double"))
>>>>>>>> [1] FALSE
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here's the surprising behavior:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> x <- 1L
>>>>>>> xx <- as(x, "numeric")
>>>>>>> class(xx)
>>>>>>> ## [1] "integer"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It occurs because the call to `as(x,
"numeric")` dispatches the coerce
>>>>>>> S4 method for the signature `c("integer",
"numeric")`, whose body is
>>>>>>> copied in below.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> function (from, to = "numeric", strict =
TRUE)
>>>>>>> if (strict) {
>>>>>>> class(from) <- "numeric"
>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>> } else from
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This in turn does nothing, even when strict=TRUE,
because that
>>>>>>> assignment to class "numeric" has no
effect:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> x <- 10L
>>>>>>> class(x) <- "numeric"
>>>>>>> class(x)
>>>>>>> [1] "integer"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is this the desired behavior for `as(x,
"numeric")`?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>> ______________________________________________
>>>>>> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
>>>>>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>
>
> [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bioc-devel at r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioc-devel
>
--
Herv? Pag?s
Program in Computational Biology
Division of Public Health Sciences
Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center
1100 Fairview Ave. N, M1-B514
P.O. Box 19024
Seattle, WA 98109-1024
E-mail: hpages at fredhutch.org
Phone: (206) 667-5791
Fax: (206) 667-1319
John Chambers
2015-Dec-26 18:07 UTC
[Rd] [Bioc-devel] For integer vectors, `as(x, "numeric")` has no effect.
Re: coerce() methods.
Important to realize that as() does not call selectMethod() in the standard way,
but restricts inheritance to the first argument:
asMethod <- selectMethod("coerce", sig, optional =
TRUE,
c(from = TRUE, to = FALSE), fdef = coerceFun,
A valid comparison would have to take account of this.
Once the method has been _correctly_ selected, it is stored in the internal
table and therefore will be returned by .findMethodInTable without repeating a
search.
John
On Dec 25, 2015, at 11:51 PM, Herv? Pag?s <hpages at fredhutch.org> wrote:
> Or maybe the "right" concept is that "numeric" is a
virtual class
> with 3 subclasses: "complex", "double", and
"integer". Anyway it's
> probably too late for implementing the "right" concept so it
doesn't
> really matter.
>
> Thanks Martin for offering to fix the as(1L, "numeric") bug. Very
> much appreciated. I guess that means fixing the class(x) <-
"numeric"
> bug on integer vectors:
>
> > x <- 1L
> > class(x) <- "numeric"
> > class(x)
> [1] "integer"
>
> My wish for 2016: that selectMethod() always tells the truth. For
> example selectMethod("coerce", c("integer",
"numeric")) doesn't
> in a fresh session, only after you call as(1L, "numeric")). Full
> story here:
>
> https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-devel/2010-April/057098.html
>
> Thanks,
> H.
>
>
> On 12/19/2015 10:09 AM, John Chambers wrote:
>> As I tried to say on Dec. 11, there are two levels of "fix":
>>
>> 1. The fix to the complaint in the OP's subject heading is to
conform to the default third argument, strict=TRUE: as(1L, "numeric")
== 1.0
>>
>> This generates some incompatibilities, as for classes that extend
"numeric". But still leaves class(1.0) "numeric" and
typeof(1.0) "double".
>>
>> The workaround for class definitions that really need NOT to coerce
integers to double is to define a class union, say
>> setClassUnion("Number", c("numeric",
"integer"))
>> and use that for the slot.
>>
>> 2. The "right" concept is arguably that "numeric"
is a virtual class with two subclasses, "double" and
"integer". Given a time machine back to < 1998, that would be my
choice. But already in the 1998 S4 book, "numeric" was equated with
"double".
>>
>> so, there it is, IMO. This is what you get with a successful
open-source language: Much hassle to do the "right thing" after the
fact and the more change, the more hassle.
>>
>> Fix 1. seems to me an actual bug fix, so my inclination would be to go
with that (on r-devel), advertising that it may change the effective definition
of some classes.
>>
>> But I can sympathize with choosing 1, 2 or neither.
>>
>> John
>>
>> PS: Until Jan. 4, I may be even poorer at replying than usual, while
getting the current book off to the publisher.
>>
>> On Dec 19, 2015, at 3:32 AM, Martin Maechler <maechler at
stat.math.ethz.ch> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> Martin Maechler <maechler at
stat.math.ethz.ch>
>>>>>>>> on Sat, 12 Dec 2015 10:32:51 +0100 writes:
>>>
>>>>>>>> John Chambers <jmc at r-project.org>
>>>>>>>> on Fri, 11 Dec 2015 10:11:05 -0800 writes:
>>>
>>>>> Somehow, the most obvious fixes are always
back-incompatible these days.
>>>>> The example intrigued me, so I looked into it a bit (should
have been doing something else, but ....)
>>>
>>>>> You're right that this is the proverbial
thin-edge-of-the-wedge.
>>>
>>>>> The problem is in setDataPart(), which will be called
whenever a class extends one of the vector types.
>>>
>>>>> It does
>>>>> as(value, dataClass)
>>>>> The key point is that the third argument to as(),
strict=TRUE by default. So, yes, the change will cause all integer vectors to
become double when the class extends "numeric". Generally,
strict=TRUE makes sense here and of course changing THAT would open up yet more
incompatibilities.
>>>
>>>>> For back compatibility, one would have to have some special
code in setDataPart() for the case of integer/numeric.
>>>
>>>>> John
>>>
>>>>> (Historically, the original sin was probably not making a
distinction between "numeric" as a virtual class and
"double" as a type/class.)
>>>
>>>> Yes, indeed. In the mean time, I've seen more cases where
>>>> "the change will cause all integer vectors to become
double when the class extends "numeric".
>>>> seems detrimental.
>>>
>>>> OTOH, I still think we could go in the right direction ---
>>>> hopefully along the wishes of bioconductor S4 development, see
>>>> Martin Morgan's e-mail:
>>>
>>>> [This is all S4 - only; should not much affect base R / S3]
>>>> Currently, "integer" is a subclass of
"numeric" and so the
>>>> "integer become double" part seems unwanted to me.
>>>> OTOH, it would really make sense to more formally
>>>> have the basic subclasses of "numeric" to be
"integer" and "double",
>>>> and to let as(*, "double") to become different to
as(*, "numeric")
>>>> [Again, this is just for the S4 classes and as() coercions,
*not* e.g.
>>>> for as.numeric() / as.double() !]
>>>
>>>> In the DEPRECATED part of the NEWS for R 2.7.0 (April 2008) we
>>>> have had
>>>
>>>> o The S4 pseudo-classes "single" and double have been
removed.
>>>> (The S4 class for a REALSXP is "numeric": for
back-compatibility
>>>> as(x, "double") coerces to "numeric".)
>>>
>>>> I think the removal of "single" was fine, but in
hindsight,
>>>> maybe the removal of "double" -- which was partly
broken then --
>>>> possibly could rather have been a fixup of "double"
along the
>>>> following
>>>
>>>> Current "thought experiment proposal" :
>>>
>>>> 1) "numeric" := {"integer",
"double"} { class - subclasses }
>>>> 2) as(1L, "numeric") continues to return 1L .. since
integer is
>>>> one case of "numeric"
>>>> 3) as(1L, "double") newly returns 1.0 {and in fact
would be
>>>> "equivalent" to as.double(1L)}
>>>
>>>> After the above change, S4 as(*, "double") would
correspond to S3 as.double
>>>> but as(*, "numeric") would continue to differ from
>>>> as.numeric(*), the former *not* changing integers to double.
>>>
>>>> Martin
>>>
>>> Also note that e.g.
>>>
>>> class(pi) would return "double" instead of
"numeric"
>>>
>>> and this will break all the bad programming style usages of
>>>
>>> if(class(x) == "numeric")
>>>
>>> which I tend to see in gazillions of user and even package codes
>>> This bad (aka error prone !) because "correct" usage
would be
>>>
>>> if(inherits(x, "numeric"))
>>>
>>> and that of course would *not* break after the change above.
>>>
>>> - - - -
>>>
>>> A week later, I'm still pretty convinced it would be worth
going
>>> in the direction proposed above.
>>>
>>> But I was actually hoping for some encouragement or "mental
support"...
>>> or then to hear why you think the proposition is not good or not
>>> viable ...
>>>
>>>
>>>>> On Dec 11, 2015, at 1:25 AM, Martin Maechler <maechler
at stat.math.ethz.ch> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Martin Maechler <maechler at
stat.math.ethz.ch>
>>>>>>>>>>> on Tue, 8 Dec 2015 15:25:21 +0100
writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> John Chambers <jmc at
r-project.org>
>>>>>>>>>>> on Mon, 7 Dec 2015 16:05:59 -0800
writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We do need an explicit method here, I think.
>>>>>>>> The issue is that as() uses methods for the
generic function coerce() but cannot use inheritance in the usual way (if it
did, you would be immediately back with no change, since "integer"
inherits from "numeric").
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Copying in the general method for coercing to
"numeric" as an explicit method for "integer" gives the
expected result:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> setMethod("coerce",
c("integer", "numeric"), getMethod("coerce",
c("ANY", "numeric")))
>>>>>>>> [1] "coerce"
>>>>>>>>> typeof(as(1L, "numeric"))
>>>>>>>> [1] "double"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Seems like a reasonable addition to the code,
unless someone sees a problem.
>>>>>>>> John
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I guess that that some package checks (in CRAN +
Bioc + ... -
>>>>>>> land) will break,
>>>>>>> but I still think we should add such a coercion to
R.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Martin
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hmm... I've tried to add the above to R
>>>>>> and do notice that there are consequences that may be
larger than
>>>>>> anticipated:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here is example code:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> myN <- setClass("myN",
contains="numeric")
>>>>>> myNid <- setClass("myNid",
contains="numeric", representation(id="character"))
>>>>>> NN <- setClass("NN",
representation(x="numeric"))
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (m1 <- myN (1:3))
>>>>>> (m2 <- myNid(1:3, id = "i3"))
>>>>>> tools::assertError(NN (1:3))# in all R versions
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ## # current R | new R
>>>>>> ## # -----------|----------
>>>>>> class(getDataPart(m1)) # integer | numeric
>>>>>> class(getDataPart(m2)) # integer | numeric
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In other words, with the above setting, the traditional
>>>>>> gentleperson's agreement in S and R,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> __ "numeric" sometimes conveniently means
"integer" or "double" __
>>>>>>
>>>>>> will be slightly less often used ... which of course
may be a
>>>>>> very good thing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However, it breaks strict back compatibility also in
cases where
>>>>>> the previous behavior may have been preferable:
>>>>>> After all integer vectors need only have the space of
doubles.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Shall we still go ahead and do apply this change to
R-devel
>>>>>> and then all package others will be willing to update
where necessary?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As this may affect the many hundreds of bioconductor
packages
>>>>>> using S4 classes, I am -- exceptionally -- cross
posting to the
>>>>>> bioc-devel list.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Martin Maechler
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Dec 7, 2015, at 3:37 PM, Benjamin Tyner
<btyner at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Perhaps it is not that surprising, given
that
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> mode(1L)
>>>>>>>>> [1] "numeric"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> is.numeric(1L)
>>>>>>>>> [1] TRUE
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On the other hand, this is curious, to say
the least:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> is.double(as(1L, "double"))
>>>>>>>>> [1] FALSE
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Here's the surprising behavior:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> x <- 1L
>>>>>>>> xx <- as(x, "numeric")
>>>>>>>> class(xx)
>>>>>>>> ## [1] "integer"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It occurs because the call to `as(x,
"numeric")` dispatches the coerce
>>>>>>>> S4 method for the signature
`c("integer", "numeric")`, whose body is
>>>>>>>> copied in below.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> function (from, to = "numeric",
strict = TRUE)
>>>>>>>> if (strict) {
>>>>>>>> class(from) <- "numeric"
>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>> } else from
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This in turn does nothing, even when
strict=TRUE, because that
>>>>>>>> assignment to class "numeric" has no
effect:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> x <- 10L
>>>>>>>> class(x) <- "numeric"
>>>>>>>> class(x)
>>>>>>>> [1] "integer"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is this the desired behavior for `as(x,
"numeric")`?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ______________________________________________
>>>>>>> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
>>>>>>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>>
>>
>> [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bioc-devel at r-project.org mailing list
>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioc-devel
>>
>
> --
> Herv? Pag?s
>
> Program in Computational Biology
> Division of Public Health Sciences
> Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center
> 1100 Fairview Ave. N, M1-B514
> P.O. Box 19024
> Seattle, WA 98109-1024
>
> E-mail: hpages at fredhutch.org
> Phone: (206) 667-5791
> Fax: (206) 667-1319
>
> ______________________________________________
> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
Reasonably Related Threads
- For integer vectors, `as(x, "numeric")` has no effect.
- For integer vectors, `as(x, "numeric")` has no effect.
- For integer vectors, `as(x, "numeric")` has no effect.
- For integer vectors, `as(x, "numeric")` has no effect.
- For integer vectors, `as(x, "numeric")` has no effect.