search for: inavoid

...s ?Inf? or ?-Inf? depending on > || the sign of zero ?x?. Another place is ?identical(0, -0, num.eq = > || FALSE)?. > > says the *contrary* ( __Where possible R treats them as the same__ ): > We do _not_ want to distinguish -0 and +0, > but there are cases where it is inavoidable > > And there are good reasons (mathematics !!) for this. > > I'm pretty sure that it would be quite a mistake to start > differentiating it here... but of course we can continue > discussing here if you like. > > Martin Maechler > ETH Zurich and R Core > >...

Hi all, The documentation for head() and tail() describes the behavior of these generic functions when n is strictly positive (n > 0) and strictly negative (n < 0). How these functions work when given a zero value is not defined. Both GNU command-line utilities head and tail behave differently with +0 and -0: http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man1/head.1.html

...in division by zero: ?1/x? is ?Inf? or ?-Inf? depending on || the sign of zero ?x?. Another place is ?identical(0, -0, num.eq = || FALSE)?. says the *contrary* ( __Where possible R treats them as the same__ ): We do _not_ want to distinguish -0 and +0, but there are cases where it is inavoidable And there are good reasons (mathematics !!) for this. I'm pretty sure that it would be quite a mistake to start differentiating it here... but of course we can continue discussing here if you like. Martin Maechler ETH Zurich and R Core > and the R head() and tail() functions ar...

...ing on >> || the sign of zero ?x?. Another place is ?identical(0, -0, num.eq = >> || FALSE)?. >> >> says the *contrary* ( __Where possible R treats them as the same__ ): >> We do _not_ want to distinguish -0 and +0, >> but there are cases where it is inavoidable >> >> And there are good reasons (mathematics !!) for this. >> >> I'm pretty sure that it would be quite a mistake to start >> differentiating it here... but of course we can continue >> discussing here if you like. >> >> Martin Maechler >...