R help - Feb 2001 - Difference between S-Plus & R 1.2.1

Sorry for the uninformative subject.

The following piece of code gives different output in S-Plus (2K & 6) vs R 
1.2.1 (Win)

apply(apehum[,6:15], 2, function(x) which(is.na(x)))

S-Plus results:

 > apply(apehum[,6:15], 2, function(x) which(is.na(x)))
$latsupri:
numeric(0)

$medepico:
numeric(0)

$pdhtcapi:
numeric(0)

$mlhtcapi:
numeric(0)

$aphttroc:
[1] 151 152

$mlhttroc:
numeric(0)

$antartbr:
numeric(0)

$olecrdep:
[1] 151

$humlengt:
[1] 105

$biepi:
numeric(0)

R 1.2.1 results:

$latsupri
numeric(0)

$medepico
numeric(0)

$pdhtcapi
numeric(0)

$mlhtcapi
numeric(0)

$aphttroc
151 152
151 152

$mlhttroc
numeric(0)

$antartbr
numeric(0)

$olecrdep
151
151

$humlengt
105
105

$biepi
numeric(0)

Why does the R output duplicate every entry where NA's are found?  I can 
eliminate this (in R) by changing the statement to:

apply(apehum[,6:15], 2, function(x) unique(which(is.na(x))))

I'm aware of the differences in the argument list for is.na() between 
S-Plus and R, but changing the default arguments doesn't avoid the 
duplicate entries.

I'm sure there is a simple explanation but it eludes me right now.

Thanks.







====================Dr. Marc R. Feldesman
Professor and Chairman
Anthropology Department
Portland State University
1721 SW Broadway
Portland, Oregon 97201
email:  feldesmanm at pdx.edu
phone:  503-725-3081
fax:    503-725-3905
http://web.pdx.edu/~h1mf
PGP Key Available On Request
=====================
"Anyway, no drug, not even alcohol, causes the fundamental ills of society.
If we're looking for the source of our troubles, we shouldn't test
people
for drugs, we should test them for stupidity, ignorance, greed and love of
power."   P.J. O'Rourke

Powered by Optiplochoerus and Windows 2000 (scary isn't it?)

-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
r-help mailing list -- Read http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.html
Send "info", "help", or "[un]subscribe"
(in the "body", not the subject !)  To: r-help-request at
stat.math.ethz.ch
_._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._

On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Marc Feldesman wrote:
> Sorry for the uninformative subject.
>
> The following piece of code gives different output in S-Plus (2K & 6)
vs R
> 1.2.1 (Win)
>
> apply(apehum[,6:15], 2, function(x) which(is.na(x)))
>
<snip>
>
> Why does the R output duplicate every entry where NA's are found?
It doesn't.  Try using length() if you don't believe it.  R has *labels*
(from the row names) on the non-empty vectors, S-PLUS apparently does not.
>							 I can
> eliminate this (in R) by changing the statement to:
>
> apply(apehum[,6:15], 2, function(x) unique(which(is.na(x))))
Yes, unique() strips the names.
> I'm aware of the differences in the argument list for is.na() between
> S-Plus and R, but changing the default arguments doesn't avoid the
> duplicate entries.
>
> I'm sure there is a simple explanation but it eludes me right now.
:-)

	-thomas

Thomas Lumley			Asst. Professor, Biostatistics
tlumley at u.washington.edu	University of Washington, Seattle

-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
r-help mailing list -- Read http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.html
Send "info", "help", or "[un]subscribe"
(in the "body", not the subject !)  To: r-help-request at
stat.math.ethz.ch
_._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._