similar to: Coercion of 'exclude' in function 'factor' (was 'droplevels' inappropriate change)

In R devel r71157, 'droplevels' documentation, in "Arguments" section, says this about argument 'exclude'. passed to factor(); factor levels which should be excluded from the result even if present. Note that this was implicitly NA in R <= 3.3.1 which did drop NA levels even when present in x, contrary to the documentation. The current default is compatible with x[ ,

>>>>> Suharto Anggono Suharto Anggono via R-devel <r-devel at r-project.org> >>>>> on Fri, 2 Sep 2016 16:10:00 +0000 writes: > I am basically fine with the change. > How about using just the following? > if(!is.character(exclude)) > exclude <- as.vector(exclude, typeof(x)) # may result in NA > x <- as.character(x)

In R devel r71124, if 'x' is a factor, droplevels(x) gives factor(x, exclude = NULL) . In R 3.3.1, it gives factor(x) . If a factor 'x' has NA and levels of 'x' doesn't contain NA, factor(x) gives the expected result for droplevels(x) , but factor(x, exclude = NULL) doesn't. As I said in https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-devel/2016-May/072796.html , factor(x,

>>>>> Martin Maechler <maechler at stat.math.ethz.ch> >>>>> on Tue, 16 May 2017 11:01:23 +0200 writes: >>>>> Serge Bibauw <sbibauw at gmail.com> >>>>> on Mon, 15 May 2017 11:59:32 -0400 writes: >> Hi, >> Just reporting a small bug? not really a big deal, but I >> don?t think that is

>>>>> Suharto Anggono Suharto Anggono via R-devel <r-devel at r-project.org> >>>>> on Sat, 27 Aug 2016 03:17:32 +0000 writes: > In R devel r71157, 'droplevels' documentation, in "Arguments" section, says this about argument 'exclude'. > passed to factor(); factor levels which should be excluded from the result even if

I found this part in the documentation of 'factor'. 'factor(x, exclude=NULL)' applied to a factor is a no-operation unless there are unused levels: in that case, a factor with the reduced level set is returned. If 'exclude' is used it should also be a factor with the same level set as 'x' or a set of codes for the levels to be excluded.

In R devel r72789, the added part in 'factor' documentation (factor.Rd) is the following. Undocumentedly for a long time, \code{factor(x)} loses all \code{\link{attributes}(x)} but \code{"names"}, and resets \code{"levels"} and \code{"class"}. In the code of function 'factor', names(x) is copied to the result. As I mentioned before, names(x) is _not_

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.

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%

Logic.Rd has been changed again in r74377. After change: ? \item{x, y}{raw or logical or \sQuote{number-like} vectors (i.e., of ? ? types \code{\link{double}} (class \code{\link{numeric}}, ? ? \code{\link{integer}}) and \code{\link{complex}}), or objects for It is still inappropriate. As I said before, integer is not double. Right: numeric includes double and integer Wrong: double includes

I stand corrected. The part "If set to 'NULL', it implies 'useNA="always"'." is even in the documentation in R 2.8.0. It was my fault not to check carefully. I wonder, why "always" was chosen for 'useNA' for exclude = NULL. Why exclude = NULL is so special? What about another 'exclude' of length zero, like character(0) (not c(),

>>>>> Martin Maechler >>>>> on Mon, 18 Nov 2019 12:15:38 +0100 writes: >>>>> suharto anggono--- via R-devel >>>>> on Sun, 17 Nov 2019 10:34:31 +0000 writes: >> SVN revision 77401 changes >> x[isM] <- lapply(x[isM], function(o) `class<-`(o, class(o)[class(o) != "AsIs"])) >> to

Looking at the code of function 'table' in R devel r71227, I see that the part "remove NA level if it was added only for excluded in factor(a, exclude=.)" is not quite right. In is.na(a) <- match(a0, c(exclude,NA), nomatch=0L) , I think that what is intended is a[a0 %in% c(exclude,NA)] <- NA . So, it should be is.na(a) <- match(a0, c(exclude,NA),

I am trying once again. By just changing f <- match(xlevs[f], nlevs) to f <- match(xlevs, nlevs)[f] , function 'factor' in R devel could be made more consistent and back-compatible. Why not picking it? -------------------------------------------- On Sat, 25/11/17, Suharto Anggono Suharto Anggono <suharto_anggono at yahoo.com> wrote: Subject: Re: [Rd] Function

This is an example from https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-help/2007-May/132573.html . With R 2.7.2: > a <- c(1, 1, 2, 2, NA, 3); b <- c(2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1) > table(a, b, exclude = NULL) b a 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 0 3 1 0 <NA> 1 0 With R 3.3.1: > a <- c(1, 1, 2, 2, NA, 3); b <- c(2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1) > table(a, b, exclude = NULL) b a 1 2

On 'aggregate data.frame', the URL should be https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-help/2016-May/438631.html . vector(typeof(ans)) (or vector(storage.mode(ans))) has length zero and can be used to initialize array. Instead of if(missing(default)) , if(identical(default, NA)) could be used. The documentation could then say, for example: "If default = NA (the default), NA of appropriate

SVN?revision?77401?changes ????????x[isM]?<-?lapply(x[isM],?function(o)?`class<-`(o,?class(o)[class(o)?!=?"AsIs"])) to ????????x[isM]?<-?lapply(x[isM],?function(o)?`class<-`(o,?class(o)[!inherits(o,"AsIs")])) in?function?'get_all_vars'?in?src/library/stats/R/models.R?in?R?devel. The?change?is?inappropriate.

Removal of ans[nas] <- NA from the code of function 'ifelse' in R is not committed (yet). Why? -------------------------------------------- On Mon, 28/11/16, Martin Maechler <maechler at stat.math.ethz.ch> wrote: Subject: Re: [Rd] ifelse() woes ... can we agree on a ifelse2() ? Cc: R-devel at r-project.org, maechler at stat.math.ethz.ch Date: Monday, 28 November, 2016, 10:00

By "an argument named 'use.names' is included for concatenation", I meant something like this, that someone might try. > c(as.Date("2016-01-01"), use.names=FALSE) use.names "2016-01-01" "1970-01-01" See, 'use.names' is in the output. That's precisely because 'c.Date' doesn't have 'use.names', so