similar to: ans[nas] <- NA in 'ifelse' (was: ifelse() woes ... can we agree on a ifelse2() ?)

For S Ellison, just clarifying, I am Suharto Anggono, not Martin Maechler. "Martin et al.," from my previous E-mail was the beginning of message from Gabriel Becker, that I quoted. The quoted "still a bit disappointed that nobody has taken a look" is from Martin Maechler. In all of the proposed 'ifelse'-like functions so far, including from me (that I labeled as

>>>>> Suharto Anggono Suharto Anggono via R-devel <r-devel at r-project.org> >>>>> on Sat, 26 Nov 2016 17:14:01 +0000 writes: > Just stating, in 'ifelse', 'test' is not recycled. As I said in "R-intro: length of 'ifelse' result" (https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-devel/2016-September/073136.html), ifelse(condition, a,

Just stating, in 'ifelse', 'test' is not recycled. As I said in "R-intro: length of 'ifelse' result" (https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-devel/2016-September/073136.html), ifelse(condition, a, b) returns a vector of the length of 'condition', even if 'a' or 'b' is longer. On current 'ifelse' code in R: * The part ans[nas] <- NA

Yes, they work now. I mentioned them partly because the commit description said overflow for large n and partly to be considered for regression tests. -------------------------------------------- On Sat, 19/8/17, Martin Maechler <maechler at stat.math.ethz.ch> wrote: Subject: Re: [Rd] Issues of R_pretty in src/appl/pretty.c Cc: r-devel at r-project.org Date: Saturday, 19 August, 2017,

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

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

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.

>>>>> 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%

On 06.08.2016 17:30, Duncan Murdoch wrote: > On 06/08/2016 10:18 AM, Martin Maechler wrote: >> Dear R-devel readers, >> ( = people interested in the improvement and development of R). >> >> This is not the first time that this topic is raised. >> and I am in now state to promise that anything will result from >> this thread ... >> >> Still, I

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_

Another possible shortcut definition: assert <- function(exprs) do.call("stopifnot", list(exprs = substitute(exprs), local = parent.frame())) After thinking again, I propose to use ??? ? ? stop(simpleError(msg, call = if(p <- sys.parent()) sys.call(p))) - It seems that the call is the call of the frame where stopifnot(...) is evaluated. Because that is the correct context, I

All, Martin: Thanks for this and all the other things you are doing to both drive R forward and engage more with the community about things like this. Apologies for missing this discussion the first time it came around and if anything here has already been brought up, but I wonder what exactly you mean when you want recycling behavior. Specifically, based on an unrelated discussion with Henrik

Related to the length of 'ifelse' result, I want to say that "example of different return modes" in ?ifelse led me to perceive a wrong thing in the past. ## example of different return modes: yes <- 1:3 no <- pi^(0:3) typeof(ifelse(NA, yes, no)) # logical typeof(ifelse(TRUE, yes, no)) # integer typeof(ifelse(FALSE, yes, no)) # double As

Finally getting back to this : >>>>> Hadley Wickham <h.wickham at gmail.com> >>>>> on Mon, 15 Aug 2016 07:51:35 -0500 writes: > On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Hadley Wickham > <h.wickham at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >> One possibility would also be to consider a >>> "numbers-only" or >>

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.

>>>>> Gabriel Becker <gmbecker at ucdavis.edu> >>>>> on Tue, 15 Nov 2016 11:56:04 -0800 writes: > All, > Martin: Thanks for this and all the other things you are doing to both > drive R forward and engage more with the community about things like this. > Apologies for missing this discussion the first time it came around and if

On 06/08/2016 10:18 AM, Martin Maechler wrote: > Dear R-devel readers, > ( = people interested in the improvement and development of R). > > This is not the first time that this topic is raised. > and I am in now state to promise that anything will result from > this thread ... > > Still, I think the majority among us has agreed that > > 1) you should never use

Dear R-devel readers, ( = people interested in the improvement and development of R). This is not the first time that this topic is raised. and I am in now state to promise that anything will result from this thread ... Still, I think the majority among us has agreed that 1) you should never use ifelse(test, yes, no) if you know that length(test) == 1, in which case if(test) yes

Interspersed below. -------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: ifelse() woes ... can we agree on a ifelse2() ? To: R-devel at lists.R-project.org Date: Sunday, 27 November, 2016, 12:14 AM On current 'ifelse' code in R: ... * If 'test' is a factor, doing storage.mode(test) <- "logical" is not appropriate, but is.atomic(test) returns TRUE. Maybe use

Examples similar to pretty(c(-1,1)*1e300, n = 1e9, min.n = 1) with smaller 'n': pretty(c(-1,1)*1e304, n = 1e5, min.n = 1) pretty(c(-1,1)*1e306, n = 1e3, min.n = 1) A report on 'pretty' when working with integers, similar to what led to change of 'seq' fuzz, is https://bugs.r-project.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=15137 -------------------------------------------- On Tue,