similar to: c(NA, 0+1i) not the same as c(as.complex(NA), 0+1i)?

>>>>> 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

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

>>>>> 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

Hmm, it is not actually at odds with help(c), it is just that the autocoercion works different that it used to, so that as.complex(NA) == as.complex(NA_real) == NA_real_+0i) which now differs from NA_complex although both print as NA. I haven't been quite alert when this change was discussed, but it does look a bit unfortunate that usage patterns like c(NA, 0+1i) does not give complex NA

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 c(as.complex(NA), 0+1i) The former is the output we tested against; the latter is essentially (via coerceVector() in C) what's generated by our

Hi, I have discovered that sample() fails with an uninformative error message when the x argument is a single NA of type double or integer. I can reproduce the problem with the following code: base::sample(NA) # NA is of logical type above base::sample(NA_character_) base::sample(NA_complex_) base::sample(NA_real_) base::sample(NA_integer_) The last two lines throw the following error: Error

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

In R 2.8.0 on Windows (tested both under ESS and under R Console in case there was an I/O issue) There is a bug in printing val <- matrix(list(NA_complex_,NA_complex_),1). > dput(val) structure(list(NA_complex_, NA_complex_), .Dim = 1:2) > print(val) [,1] [1,] [,2] [1,] Note that a large number of spaces are printed instead of NA. Compare the unproblematic real case:

According to http://cran.r-project.org/doc/manuals/r-release/R-lang.html#Reserved-words if else repeat while function for in next break TRUE FALSE NULL Inf NaN NA NA_integer_ NA_real_ NA_complex_ NA_character_ ... ..1 ..2 etc. are all reserved keywords. However, in R 3.0.2 you can do things like: `if` <- function(cond, val1, val2) val2 after which if(TRUE) 1 else 2 returns 2.

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,

Consider #as.numeric for emphasis sprintf('%d', as.numeric(1)) # [1] "1" vs. sprintf('%d', NA_real_) > Error in sprintf("%d", NA_real_) : invalid format '%d'; use format %f, %e, %g or %a for numeric object > I understand the error is correct, but if it works for other numeric input, why doesn't R just coerce NA_real_ to NA_integer_?

I don't see this specific case documented anywhere (I also tried to search the r-devel archives, as well as I could); the only close reference mentions NA & FALSE = FALSE, NA | TRUE = TRUE. And there's also this snippet from R-lang: In cases where the result of the operation would be the same for all > possible values the NA could take, the operation may return this value. >

I initially thought this is "documented behaviour". ?sprintf says: Numeric variables with __exactly integer__ values will be coerced to integer. (emphasis mine). Turns out this only works when the first value is numeric and not NA, as shown by the following example: > sprintf("%d", as.numeric(c(NA,1))) Error in sprintf("%d", as.numeric(c(NA, 1))) : invalid

https://github.com/Rdatatable/data.table/issues/2171 The fix was easy, it's just surprising to see the behavior change almost on a whim. Just wanted to point it out in case this is unknown behavior, but Evan seems to have found this as well. On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 12:00 PM, Michael Chirico <michaelchirico4 at gmail.com > wrote: > Astute observation. And of course we should be

Dear Martin, What's the ETA for _R_CLASS_MATRIX_ARRAY_=TRUE to become the new unconditional behavior in R devel? Thanks! H. On 11/21/19 08:57, Martin Maechler wrote: > > TLDR: This is quite technical, still somewhat important: > 1) R 4.0.0 will become a bit more coherent: a matrix is an array > 2) Your package (or one you use) may be affected. > >

>>>>> Michael Chirico >>>>> on Sat, 23 May 2020 18:08:22 +0800 writes: > I don't see this specific case documented anywhere (I also tried to search > the r-devel archives, as well as I could); the only close reference > mentions NA & FALSE = FALSE, NA | TRUE = TRUE. And there's also this > snippet from R-lang: > In

>>>>> Pages, Herve >>>>> on Thu, 14 Nov 2019 19:13:47 +0000 writes: > On 11/14/19 05:47, Hadley Wickham wrote: >> On Sun, Nov 10, 2019 at 2:37 AM Martin Maechler >> <maechler at stat.math.ethz.ch> wrote: >>> >>>>>>>> Gabriel Becker >>>>>>>> on Sat, 2 Nov 2019

Yes, what Joris posts about is exactly what I noted in my March 9th post to R-devel. The behaviour is sort of documented, but not in the clearest manner (in my opinion). Like I say, my ultimate conclusion was that the silent coercion of numerics to integers by sprintf() was a handy convenience, but not one that should be relied about to always work predictably. On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 10:02 AM,

Hi Michael, I posted something on this topic to R-devel several weeks ago, but never got a response. My ultimate conclusion is that sprintf() isn't super consistent in how it handles coercion: sometimes it'll coerce real to integer without complaint, other times it won't. (My particular email had to do with the vectors longer than 1 and their positioning vis-a-vis the format string.)

Astute observation. And of course we should be passing integer when we use %d. It's an edge case in how we printed ITime objects in data.table: On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 11:53 AM, Joris Meys <jorismeys at gmail.com> wrote: > I initially thought this is "documented behaviour". ?sprintf says: > > Numeric variables with __exactly integer__ values will be coerced to >