similar to: NA and NaN in function identical

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

Hello R-devel, Best wishes in the new year. I am writing to kindly request new R function so NA_real_ can be more easily detected. Currently if one wants to test for NA_real_ (but not NaN) then extra work has to be done: `is.na(x) & !is.nan(x)` Required functionality is already at C level so to address my request there is not that much to do. Kevin Ushey made a nice summary of current R C api

"nana" is meant to express "NA, really NA". Your suggestion sounds good. On Thu 2 Jan, 2020, 3:38 AM Pages, Herve, <hpages at fredhutch.org> wrote: > Happy New Year everybody! > > The name (is.nana) doesn't make much sense to me. Can you explain it? > > One alternative would be to add an extra argument (e.g. 'strict') to > is.na(). FALSE by

Hi all, Surprisingly (at least to me), `as.complex(NA_real_)` results in `complex(real = NA_real_, imaginary = 0)` rather than `NA_complex_`. It seems to me that this goes against the docs of `as.complex()`, which say this in the Details section: "Up to R versions 3.2.x, all forms of NA and NaN were coerced to a complex NA, i.e., the NA_complex_ constant, for which both the real and

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,

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

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,

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

lgamma(x) and lfactorial(x) are defined to return ln|Gamma(x)| {= log(abs(gamma(x)))} or ln|Gamma(x+1)| respectively. Unfortunately, we haven't chosen the analogous definition for lchoose(). So, currently > lchoose(1/2, 1:10) [1] -0.6931472 -2.0794415 NaN -3.2425924 NaN -3.8869494 [7] NaN -4.3357508 NaN -4.6805913 Warning message: In

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.

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

>>>>> 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

>>>>> 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

>>>>> 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)

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

Hi All, I have some data where I am doing fairly simple calculations, nothing more than adding, subtracting, multiplying and dividing. I’m running into a problem when I divide one variable by another and when they’re both 0 I get NaN. I realize that if you divide a non-zero by 0 then you get Inf, which is, of course, correct. But in my case I never get Inf, just NaN because of the structure

Hello, What is the best way to turn a matrix into a list removing NaN's? I'm new to R... Start: > mt = matrix(c(1,4,NaN,5,3,6),2,3) > mt [,1] [,2] [,3] [1,] 1 NaN 3 [2,] 4 5 6 Desired result: > lst [[1]] [1] 1 3 [[2]] [1] 4 5 6 Thanks! Ben [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

How can I remove columns with NaN entries ? Here is my simple example: > data <- read.csv("test.csv") > xdata <- data[3:length(data)] > xs <- lapply(xdata, function(x){(x - mean(x))/sqrt(var(x))}) > x <- data.frame(xs) > x C D E F 1 -0.7071068 NaN -0.7071068 -0.7071068 2 0.7071068 NaN 0.7071068 0.7071068

Dear R Team The following line returns 0 (zero) as answer: sum(c(NA_real_, NA_real_, NA_real_, NA_real_), na.rm = TRUE) One would, however, have expected it to return 'NaN', as is the case with function 'mean': > mean(c(NA_real_, NA_real_, NA_real_, NA_real_), na.rm = TRUE) [1] NaN The problem in other words: I have a vector filled with missing numbers. I run the

Hi How do I specify an S4 class with a slot that is potentially numeric, but NA by default? I want the slot to be NA until I calculate its value (an expensive operation, not needed for all applications). When its value is known, I will create a new object with the correct value inserted in the slot. I want "NA" to signify "not known". My attempt fails because