similar to: Shouldn't vector indexing with negative out-of-range index give an error?

On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 1:33 AM, Martin Maechler <maechler at lynne.stat.math.ethz.ch> wrote: >>>>>> John Chambers <jmc at stat.stanford.edu> >>>>>> on Tue, 5 May 2015 08:39:46 -0700 writes: > > > When someone suggests that we "might have had a reason" for some peculiarity in the original S, my usual reaction is "Or

>>>>> John Chambers <jmc at stat.stanford.edu> >>>>> on Tue, 5 May 2015 08:39:46 -0700 writes: > When someone suggests that we "might have had a reason" for some peculiarity in the original S, my usual reaction is "Or else we never thought of the problem". > In this case, however, there is a relevant statement in the 1988

>>>>> Henrik Bengtsson <henrik.bengtsson at ucsf.edu> >>>>> on Mon, 4 May 2015 12:20:44 -0700 writes: > In Section 'Indexing by vectors' of 'R Language Definition' > (http://cran.r-project.org/doc/manuals/r-release/R-lang.html#Indexing-by-vectors) > it says: > "Integer. All elements of i must have the same

On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 12:55 AM, peter dalgaard <pdalgd at gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 09 May 2015, at 02:53 , Henrik Bengtsson <henrik.bengtsson at ucsf.edu> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I spotted what looks like another(*) mistake in 'R Language >> Definition' on how subsetting should work. In Section 'Indexing >> matrices and

Hi, I spotted what looks like another(*) mistake in 'R Language Definition' on how subsetting should work. In Section 'Indexing matrices and arrays' [http://cran.r-project.org/doc/manuals/r-release/R-lang.html#Indexing-matrices-and-arrays] one can read "Negative indices are not allowed in indexing matrices." but this is not true, e.g. > x <- matrix(1:12,

Hi, From the R Language Definition, Section 3.4.1: "If i is positive and exceeds length(x) then the corresponding selection is NA. A negative out of bounds value for i causes an error." (This is also mentioned in S Programming, footnote of page 24.) Can someone please provide an example triggering the error? Looking in src/main/subscript.c I could not find exception handling for

Is there a missing value constant defined for R_xlen_t, cf. NA_INTEGER (== R_NaInt == INT_MIN) for int(eger)? If not, is it correct to assume that missing values should be taken care/tested for before coercing from int or double? Thank you, Henrik

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?

**Maybe this bug needs to be understood further before applying the patch because patch is most likely also wrong** Because, from just looking at the expressions, I think neither the R 3.6.0 version: omittedSig <- omittedSig && (signature[omittedSig] != "missing") nor the patched version (I proposed): omittedSig <- omittedSig & (signature[omittedSig] !=

As kindly pointed out to me (oh my decaying gray matter), is.object() is better suited for this test; $ svn diff src/library/base/R/diag.R Index: src/library/base/R/diag.R =================================================================== --- src/library/base/R/diag.R (revision 68345) +++ src/library/base/R/diag.R (working copy) @@ -23,9 +23,11 @@ stop("'nrow' or

>>>>> Steve Bronder <sbronder at stevebronder.com> >>>>> on Thu, 7 May 2015 11:49:49 -0400 writes: > Is it possible to replace c() with .subset()? It would be possible, but I think "entirely" wrong. .subset() is documented to be an internal function not to be used "lightly" and more to the point it is documented to *NOT*

Thanks I think you have both answered my question (reckon Ill go S3 on that). As an adjunct to this do you know what might be the best reference to the S4 methods current implementation. I have ordered the Chambers book "Programming with Data", and I have a short tutorial-- "S4 Classes in 15 pages, more or less". Have I missed any other useful resources? Stephen Henderson

El dom., 5 ago. 2018 a las 6:27, Kenny Bell (<kmbell56 at gmail.com>) escribi?: > > This should more clearly illustrate the issue: > > c(1, 2, 3, 4)[-seq_len(4)] > #> numeric(0) > c(1, 2, 3, 4)[-seq_len(3)] > #> [1] 4 > c(1, 2, 3, 4)[-seq_len(2)] > #> [1] 3 4 > c(1, 2, 3, 4)[-seq_len(1)] > #> [1] 2 3 4 > c(1, 2, 3, 4)[-seq_len(0)] > #>

On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 9:55 AM, Hadley Wickham <h.wickham at gmail.com> wrote: >> But, how you propose a warning-to-error transition should be made >> without wreaking havoc? Just flip the switch in R-devel and see CRAN >> and Bioconductor packages break overnight? Particularly Bioconductor >> devel might become non-functional (since at times it requires >>

Full_Name: Henrik Bengtsson Version: 1.6.0, 1.5.1 OS: WinXP Pro Submission from: (NULL) (128.250.252.82) The following example, which I tested on both R v1.5.1 and R v1.6.0 on WinXP Pro, shows the problem I encountered when trying to use the class attribute of an environment: # Define method print() for class Environment C print(e) # gives: # [1] "An Environment!" # Exit [R]

Matrix indexing seems to give rather "variable" results when zeros or negative values are included among the indices (in terms of both error messages and in terms of the number of returned values when there is no error message). Is this the intended behavior? I couldn't see any comments about zeros or negative values in matrix indices in either ?"[" or Section 3.4.2

Dear all, I can't see how setGeneric() works. I know perfectly well how to define library(methods); setClass("Square", representation(side="numeric")); # Will become the default method. getArea <- function(object) { stop(paste("Method getArea() is not defined for this class:", data.class(object))); } setMethod("getArea",

Is there really a need for these complications? Packages emitting this warning are broken by definition and should be fixed. Perhaps we could "flip the switch" in a test environment and see how much havoc is wreaked and whether authors are sufficiently responsive? Michael On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 12:04 PM, Martin Maechler <maechler at stat.math.ethz.ch > wrote: >

I'd like to propose that the whenever the length of condition passed to an if or a while statement differs from one, an error is produced rather than just a warning as today: > x <- 1:2 > if (x == 1) message("x == 1") x == 1 Warning message: In if (x == 1) message("x == 1") : the condition has length > 1 and only the first element will be used There are

# Issue 'x || y' performs 'x[1] || y' for length(x) > 1. For instance (here using R 3.5.1), > c(TRUE, TRUE) || FALSE [1] TRUE > c(TRUE, FALSE) || FALSE [1] TRUE > c(TRUE, NA) || FALSE [1] TRUE > c(FALSE, TRUE) || FALSE [1] FALSE This property is symmetric in LHS and RHS (i.e. 'y || x' behaves the same) and it also applies to 'x && y'.