similar to: R (development) changes in arith, logic, relop with (0-extent) arrays

> Radford Nea: > > So it may make more sense to move towards consistency in the > > permissive direction, rather than the restrictive direction. > > > That would mean allowing matrix(1,1,1) < (1:2), and maybe also things > > like matrix(1,2,2)+(1:8). > > Martin Maechler: > That is an interesting idea. Yes, in my view that would >

>>>>> Radford Neal <radford at cs.toronto.edu> >>>>> on Thu, 8 Sep 2016 17:11:18 -0400 writes: > Regarding Martin Maechler's proposal: > Arithmetic between length-1 arrays and longer non-arrays had > silently dropped the array attributes and recycled. This now gives > a warning and will signal an error in the future, as it

>>>>> Radford Neal <radford at cs.toronto.edu> >>>>> on Fri, 9 Sep 2016 10:29:14 -0400 writes: >> Radford Nea: >> > So it may make more sense to move towards consistency in the >> > permissive direction, rather than the restrictive direction. >> >> > That would mean allowing matrix(1,1,1) <

> > But isn't the intent to make it an error later? So I assume we're > > debating making it an error, not just a warning. > > Yes, that's correct. > But if we have a longish deprecation period (i.e. where there's > only a warning) all important code should have been adapted > before it turns to an error That might be true for

>>>>> Martin Maechler <maechler at stat.math.ethz.ch> >>>>> on Tue, 6 Sep 2016 22:26:31 +0200 writes: > Yesterday, changes to R's development version were committed, relating > to arithmetic, logic ('&' and '|') and > comparison/relational ('<', '==') binary operators > which in NEWS are

>>>>> robin hankin <hankin.robin at gmail.com> >>>>> on Thu, 8 Sep 2016 10:05:21 +1200 writes: > Martin I'd like to make a comment; I think that R's > behaviour on 'edge' cases like this is an important thing > and it's great that you are working on it. > I make heavy use of zero-extent arrays, chiefly

Yesterday, changes to R's development version were committed, relating to arithmetic, logic ('&' and '|') and comparison/relational ('<', '==') binary operators which in NEWS are described as SIGNIFICANT USER-VISIBLE CHANGES: [.............] ? Arithmetic, logic (?&?, ?|?) and comparison (aka ?relational?, e.g.,

Shouldn't binary operators (arithmetic and logical) should throw an error when one operand is NULL (or other type that doesn't make sense)? This is a different case than a zero-length operand of a legitimate type. E.g., any(x < 0) should return FALSE if x is number-like and length(x)==0 but give an error if x is NULL. I.e., I think the type check should be done before the length

On 09/08/2016 01:22 PM, Gabriel Becker wrote: > On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 10:05 AM, William Dunlap <wdunlap at tibco.com> wrote: > >> Shouldn't binary operators (arithmetic and logical) should throw an error >> when one operand is NULL (or other type that doesn't make sense)? This is >> a different case than a zero-length operand of a legitimate type. E.g.,

Prior to the mid-1990s, S did "length-0 OP length-n -> rep(NA, n)" and it was changed to "length-0 OP length-n -> length-0" to avoid lots of problems like any(x<0) being NA when length(x)==0. Yes, people could code defensively by putting lots of if(length(x)==0)... in their code, but that is tedious and error-prone and creates really ugly code. Is your suggestion to

On 09/07/2016 05:00 AM, r-devel-request at r-project.org wrote: > I've been slightly surprised (or even "frustrated") by the empty > reaction on our R-devel list to this post. > > I would have expected some critique, may be even some praise, > ... in any case some sign people are "thinking along" (as we say > in German). Have patience Martin. I read the

Thank you, Gabe and Bill, for taking up the discussion. >>>>> William Dunlap <wdunlap at tibco.com> >>>>> on Thu, 8 Sep 2016 10:45:07 -0700 writes: > Prior to the mid-1990s, S did "length-0 OP length-n -> rep(NA, n)" and it > was changed > to "length-0 OP length-n -> length-0" to avoid lots of problems like

Martin I'd like to make a comment; I think that R's behaviour on 'edge' cases like this is an important thing and it's great that you are working on it. I make heavy use of zero-extent arrays, chiefly because the dimnames are an efficient and logical way to keep track of certain types of information. If I have, for example, a <- array(0,c(2,0,2)) dimnames(a) <-

Martin, Like Robin and Oliver I think this type of edge-case consistency is important and that it's fantastic that R-core - and you personally - are willing to tackle some of these "gotcha" behaviors. "Little" stuff like this really does combine to go a long way to making R better and better. I do wonder a bit about the x = 1:2 y = NULL x < y case. Returning a

Could we take a cue from min() and max()? > x <- 1:10 > min(x[x>7]) [1] 8 > min(x[x>11]) [1] Inf Warning message: In min(x[x > 11]) : no non-missing arguments to min; returning Inf > As ?min says, this is implemented to preserve transitivity, and this makes a lot of sense. I think the issuing of a warning here is a good compromise; I can always turn off warnings if I

On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 10:05 AM, William Dunlap <wdunlap at tibco.com> wrote: > Shouldn't binary operators (arithmetic and logical) should throw an error > when one operand is NULL (or other type that doesn't make sense)? This is > a different case than a zero-length operand of a legitimate type. E.g., > any(x < 0) > should return FALSE if x is number-like

Dear sirs, 1...........Kindly tell me is it possible to form a matrix which contains a no of matrices.. for eg.. if a,b,c,d are matrices.... and e is a matrix which contains a,b,c,d as rows and columns.. 2..........Is it possible to form array of array of arrays for eg.. "A" contains two set of arrays (1,2)...and each A[1] and A[2] individually contains two set of arrays I tried like

A new version of pqR is now available at pqR-project.org, which fixes several bugs that are also present in the latest R Core patch release (r66002). A number of bugs found previously during pqR development are also unfixed in the latest R Core release. Here is the list of these bugs that are unfixed in r66002 (including documentation deficiencies), taken from the pqR bug fix and documentation

Dear all, When I coerce a vector into a multi dimensional array, I would like R to start filling the array along the last dimension, then the 2nd last etc. Let's jump straight into an example. x <- 1 : 24 y <- array(dim=c(2,2,6)) I would like to have: y[1,1,1] = 1 y[1,1,2] = 2 ... y[1,1,6] = 6 y[1,2,1] = 7 y[1,2,2] = 8 ... y[2,1,1] = 13 ... y[2,2,1] = 19 if I do y<- array(x,

> Then the question would be if this test could be replaced with a new > argument to sample, e.g. expandSingle, which has TRUE as default for > backward compatibility, but FALSE if you dont want population to be > expanded to 1:population. It could certainly be useful in some cases, > but you still need to know about the expansion to use it. I think most > of these bugs