R devel - Jun 2018 - Tiny bug in lm()?

I suppose that this never affects anything, but in line 57 of lm.R,
where the coefficients are defined for an empty model, when y is a
matrix, shouldn't the value be matrix(,0,nrow(y)) rather than
matrix(,0,3)?

I meant ncol(y) of course.

Brett Presnell <presnell at ufl.edu> writes:
> I suppose that this never affects anything, but in line 57 of lm.R,
> where the coefficients are defined for an empty model, when y is a
> matrix, shouldn't the value be matrix(,0,nrow(y)) rather than
> matrix(,0,3)?

>>>>> Brett Presnell 
>>>>>     on Sun, 24 Jun 2018 13:57:04 +0100 writes:
    > I meant ncol(y) of course.

    > Brett Presnell <presnell at ufl.edu> writes:

    >> I suppose that this never affects anything, but in line
    >> 57 of lm.R, where the coefficients are defined for an
    >> empty model, when y is a matrix, shouldn't the value be
    >> matrix(,0,nrow(y)) rather than matrix(,0,3)?

Yes ("ncol(y)") and actually it should be 'double', not
'logical'.

OTOH: Multivariate empty models are probably pretty rare, so no
      wonder this has never been reported the last 13.374 years
      this has been in the sources.

Of course, I will still fix it.  Thank you, Brett, for reporting!

Martin