search for: bigoutput

...pois output a numerics rather than integers when a number simulated exceeds .Machine$integer.max.? And it does seem to make less sense in such cases to return NAs. ?????? Alternatively, might it make sense to add another argument to rpois to give the user the choice?? E.g., an argument "bigOutput" with (I hope) default = "numeric" and "NA" as a second option.? Or NA is the default, so no code that relied that feature of the current code would be broken by the change.? If someone wanted to use arbitrary precision arithmetic, they could write their own version of...

...a number simulated > exceeds .Machine$integer.max.? And it does seem to make less sense > in such cases to return NAs. > > > ?????? Alternatively, might it make sense to add another argument > to rpois to give the user the choice?? E.g., an argument > "bigOutput" with (I hope) default = "numeric" and "NA" as a second > option.? Or NA is the default, so no code that relied that feature > of the current code would be broken by the change.? If someone > wanted to use arbitrary precision arithmetic, they could writ...

...chine$integer.max.? And it does seem to >> make less sense in such cases to return NAs. >> >> >> ?????? Alternatively, might it make sense to add another >> argument to rpois to give the user the choice?? E.g., an >> argument "bigOutput" with (I hope) default = "numeric" and >> "NA" as a second option.? Or NA is the default, so no code >> that relied that feature of the current code would be broken >> by the change.? If someone wanted to use arbitrary precision &gt...

...rather > than integers when a number simulated exceeds .Machine$integer.max. And it > does seem to make less sense in such cases to return NAs. > > > Alternatively, might it make sense to add another argument to rpois > to give the user the choice? E.g., an argument "bigOutput" with (I hope) > default = "numeric" and "NA" as a second option. Or NA is the default, so > no code that relied that feature of the current code would be broken by the > change. If someone wanted to use arbitrary precision arithmetic, they > could write their...

...egers when a number simulated exceeds .Machine$integer.max. And it >> does seem to make less sense in such cases to return NAs. >> >> >> Alternatively, might it make sense to add another argument to >> rpois to give the user the choice? E.g., an argument "bigOutput" with (I >> hope) default = "numeric" and "NA" as a second option. Or NA is the >> default, so no code that relied that feature of the current code would be >> broken by the change. If someone wanted to use arbitrary precision >> arithmetic, they c...

...> make less sense in such cases to return NAs. >>>> >>>> >>>> ?????? Alternatively, might it make sense to add another >>>> argument to rpois to give the user the choice?? E.g., an >>>> argument "bigOutput" with (I hope) default = "numeric" and >>>> "NA" as a second option.? Or NA is the default, so no code >>>> that relied that feature of the current code would be broken >>>> by the change.? If someone wanted to...

So imagine rpois is changed, such that the storage mode of its return value is sometimes integer and sometimes numeric. Then imagine the case where lambda is itself a realization of a random variable. Do we really want the storage mode to inherit that randomness? On 1/19/20 10:47 AM, Avraham Adler wrote: > Maybe there should be code for 64 bit R to use long long or the like? > > On

...it does seem to >>> make less sense in such cases to return NAs. >>> >>> >>> ?????? Alternatively, might it make sense to add another >>> argument to rpois to give the user the choice?? E.g., an >>> argument "bigOutput" with (I hope) default = "numeric" and >>> "NA" as a second option.? Or NA is the default, so no code >>> that relied that feature of the current code would be broken >>> by the change.? If someone wanted to use arbitrary p...

...ake less sense in such cases to return NAs. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ?????? Alternatively, might it make sense to add another >>>>> argument to rpois to give the user the choice?? E.g., an >>>>> argument "bigOutput" with (I hope) default = "numeric" and >>>>> "NA" as a second option.? Or NA is the default, so no code >>>>> that relied that feature of the current code would be broken >>>>> by the change.? If someone wanted to use...