similar to: memory bug in is.na[n]() (PR#952)

The quirk as in table(1:3, exclude = 1, useNA = "ifany") is actually somewhat documented, and still in R devel r71104. In R help on 'table', in "Details" section: It is best to supply factors rather than rely on coercion. In particular, ?exclude? will be used in coercion to a factor, and so values (not levels) which appear in ?exclude? before coercion will be mapped to

>>>>> Martin Maechler <maechler at stat.math.ethz.ch> >>>>> on Mon, 15 Aug 2016 11:07:43 +0200 writes: >>>>> Suharto Anggono Suharto Anggono <suharto_anggono at yahoo.com> >>>>> on Sun, 14 Aug 2016 03:42:08 +0000 writes: >> useNA <- if (missing(useNA) && !missing(exclude) && !(NA %in%

Extremes.Rd, that documents 'max' and 'pmax', has this in "Details" section, in the paragraph before the last. By definition the min/max of a numeric vector containing an NaN is NaN, except that the min/max of any vector containing an NA is NA even if it also contains an NaN. ------------------ >>>>> Michal Burda <michal.burda at centrum.cz>

Vince Carey found this (thank you!). Since the fix to the problem is not entirely obvious, I post this to R-devel as RFC: help(dist) says: >> Missing values are allowed, and are excluded from all computations >> involving the rows within which they occur. If some columns are >> excluded in calculating a Euclidean, Manhattan or Canberra >> distance, the sum is

On 'factor', I meant the case where 'levels' is not specified, where 'unique' is called. > factor(c(complex(real=NaN), complex(imaginary=NaN))) [1] NaN+0i <NA> Levels: NaN+0i Look at <NA> in the result above. Yes, it happens in earlier versions of R, too. On matching both NA and NaN, another consequence is that length(unique(.)) may depend on order.

useNA <- if (missing(useNA) && !missing(exclude) && !(NA %in% exclude)) "ifany" An example where it change 'table' result for non-factor input, from https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-help/2005-April/069053.html : x <- c(1,2,3,3,NA) table(as.integer(x), exclude=NaN) I bring the example up, in case that the change in result is not intended.

I'm having trouble grokking complex NaN's. This first set examples using complex(re=NaN,im=NaN) give what I expect > Re(complex(re=NaN, im=NaN)) [1] NaN > Im(complex(re=NaN, im=NaN)) [1] NaN > Arg(complex(re=NaN, im=NaN)) [1] NaN > Mod(complex(re=NaN, im=NaN)) [1] NaN > abs(complex(re=NaN, im=NaN)) [1] NaN and so do the following > Re(complex(re=1,

On Linux when I compile R 2.10.0(devel) (src/main/arithmetic.c in particular) with gcc 3.4.5 using the flags -g -O2 I get noncommutative behavior when adding NA and NaN: > NA_real_ + NaN [1] NaN > NaN + NA_real_ [1] NA If I compile src/main/arithmetic.c without optimization (just -g) then both of those return NA. On Windows, using a precompiled R 2.8.1 from CRAN I get NA for

Thanks Martin. My hang-up was not on what the outcome of as.complex(NA) should be, but rather, how I should read code like c(x, y) generally. Till now, I have thought of it like 'c(x, y)' is c(as(x, typeof(y)), y)` when "type(y) > type(x)". Basically in my mind, "coercion" in R <-> as.<newtype>(.) (or coerceVector() in C). So I tracked down the source

That, for example, complex(real=NaN) and complex(imaginary=NaN) are regarded as equal makes it possible that length(unique(as.character(x))) > length(unique(x)) (current code of function 'factor' doesn't expect it). Yes, an argument for the behavior is that NA and NaN are of one kind. On my system, using 32-bit R for Windows from binary from CRAN, the result of sapply(z, match,

Also, this should have gone in R-bugs quite a while ago : ------- start of forwarded message ------- From: Martin Maechler <maechler@stat.math.ethz.ch> To: R-core@stat.math.ethz.ch Subject: PROTECT() bugs in deriv(*, *, function.arg = ) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 21:02:10 +0200 In R versions 0.50 and 0.64.2 , the following worked > deriv(expression(sin(cos(x) * y)),

>>>>> Michael Chirico >>>>> on Sun, 5 Nov 2023 09:41:42 -0800 writes: > This is another follow-up to the thread from September > "Recent changes to as.complex(NA_real_)". > A test in data.table was broken by the changes for NA > coercion to complex; the breakage essentially comes from > c(NA, 0+1i) > # vs

Dear R users, is the following OK? > max(NA, NaN) [1] NA > max(NaN, NA) [1] NA > pmax(NaN, NA) [1] NA > pmax(NA, NaN) [1] NaN ...or is it a bug? Documentation says that NA has a higher priority over NaN. Best regards, Michal Burda [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

This is an RFC / announcement related to the 2nd part of PR#16885 https://bugs.r-project.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16885 about complex NA's. The (somewhat rare) incompatibility in R's 3.3.0 match() behavior for the case of complex numbers with NA & NaN's {which has been fixed for R 3.3.0 patched in the mean time} triggered some more comprehensive "research". I

Full_Name: Naoki Takebayashi Version: 0.65.0+R-release.diff (Oct 6, 1999) OS: Linux/Alpha Submission from: (NULL) (129.79.224.171) This will fix the "problem 2 (crash in fft)" in Bug ID #277 On Linux/Alpha, make check failed because R could not handle the following example in base-Ex.R ##___ Examples ___: # The Old Faithful geyser data data(faithful) : : ## Missing values: x <-

> Do you have R code (including set.seed(.) if relevant) to show on how to generate > the large square matrices you've mentioned in the beginning? So we get to some > reproducible benchmarks? Hi Martin, Here is the program I used. I only generate 2 random numbers and reuse them to make the benchmark run faster. Let me know if there is something I can do to help--alternate

>>>>> Gabriel Becker >>>>> on Tue, 5 Mar 2019 22:01:37 -0800 writes: > On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 9:54 PM Richard White <w at rwhite.no> wrote: >> Hi Gabriel, >> >> The point is that it *visually* displays as NA, but is.na() still >> responds as FALSE. >> >> When I (and I am sure many people)

Thank you for the introduction to these recent changes, Martin. I think this was the second time I ran "make check" on that platform (Raspberry Pi 32-bit), and the first time (some months ago) it worked fine. So, that makes it kind of "suddenly", although I must say that my use of "make check" is very irregular. I compared code before and after the split you are

>>>>> Mikael Jagan >>>>> on Wed, 8 Nov 2023 11:13:18 -0500 writes: > So, to summarize, the open questions are: > (1) Should as.complex(NA_character_) give complex(r=NA_real_, i=0) > instead of NA_complex_? > (2) Should the first argument in c(NA, x) and c(NA_integer_, x), > where typeof(x) == "complex", be promoted

So, to summarize, the open questions are: (1) Should as.complex(NA_character_) give complex(r=NA_real_, i=0) instead of NA_complex_? (2) Should the first argument in c(NA, x) and c(NA_integer_, x), where typeof(x) == "complex", be promoted to complex(r=NA_real_, i=0) instead of NA_complex_? My opinions: (1) No. The imaginary part of the