Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "sign2".
Did you mean:
sign
2019 Jun 27
0
methods package: A _R_CHECK_LENGTH_1_LOGIC2_=true error
...dex will extend signature!
> (I'm sure there is a valid reason, I just don't get it...)
> -pd
I've also have mused over that question...
and I had assumed some difference in the case the original
omittedSig contains NAs ... but that's NOT true actually, see:
> sign2 <- signatures <- LETTERS
> omittedSig <- LETTERS < "K"
> omittedSig[c(8,18)] <- NA # now have an omittedSig with {T, F, NA}
> iSig <- seq_along(omittedSig)[omittedSig]
> sign2[iSig] <- "missing"
> signatures[omittedSig] <- "m...
2019 Jun 27
2
methods package: A _R_CHECK_LENGTH_1_LOGIC2_=true error
Henrik,
If a minimal reprex is hard to construct, could you perhaps instrument your version of R to include a browser() call at the start of the
else if(!all(signature[omittedSig] == "missing")) {
branch, run the code that triggers the issue for you (and must hit that branch) and tell us what the "signature" and "omittedSig" objects look like at that point?
2019 Jun 27
2
methods package: A _R_CHECK_LENGTH_1_LOGIC2_=true error
...(I'm sure there is a valid reason, I just don't get it...)
>
> > -pd
>
> I've also have mused over that question...
> and I had assumed some difference in the case the original
> omittedSig contains NAs ... but that's NOT true actually, see:
>
> > sign2 <- signatures <- LETTERS
> > omittedSig <- LETTERS < "K"
> > omittedSig[c(8,18)] <- NA # now have an omittedSig with {T, F, NA}
> > iSig <- seq_along(omittedSig)[omittedSig]
> > sign2[iSig] <- "missing"
> > signatures[...