search for: reald

R developers, Seems I get a bad result ("%#4.0-1e" in particular) when trying to use prettyNum digits=0 with scientific notation. I tried on both my Linux box and on an online R evaluator and saw the same problem, so it's not limited to my box at least. I see the problem in both R 3.5.3 and R 3.3.2. options(scipen=-100) prettyNum(1, digits=0) [1] "%#4.0-1e" prettyNum(2,

...rently .... > but I acknowledge that the ?format help page does not say so > explicitly yet: it 'real and complex' numbers for the > 'scientific' argument, and 'numeric and complex' numbers for > the 'format' argument. > If you replac numeric by reald, what this entails (by logic) > that 'integer' numbers are *not* affected by 'digits' nor 'scientific'. > > But there's yet more subtlety: 'integer' here means class/type "integer" > and not just an integer number, i.e., the difference of...

...atting behaves differently .... but I acknowledge that the ?format help page does not say so explicitly yet: it 'real and complex' numbers for the 'scientific' argument, and 'numeric and complex' numbers for the 'format' argument. If you replac numeric by reald, what this entails (by logic) that 'integer' numbers are *not* affected by 'digits' nor 'scientific'. But there's yet more subtlety: 'integer' here means class/type "integer" and not just an integer number, i.e., the difference of 1L and 1 : &g...

...edge that the ?format help page does not say so >> explicitly yet: it 'real and complex' numbers for the >> 'scientific' argument, and 'numeric and complex' numbers for >> the 'format' argument. >> If you replac numeric by reald, what this entails (by logic) >> that 'integer' numbers are *not* affected by 'digits' nor 'scientific'. >> >> But there's yet more subtlety: 'integer' here means class/type "integer" >> and not just an integer...