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, im=NaN)) [1] 1 > Im(complex(re=1, im=NaN)) [1] NaN > Re(complex(re=NaN, im=1)) [1] NaN > Im(complex(re=NaN, im=1)) [1] 1 but I don't have a good mental model that explains why the following produce NA instead of NaN. > as.complex(NaN) [1] NA > Im(complex(modulus=NaN, argument=NaN)) [1] NA > Re(complex(modulus=NaN, argument=NaN)) [1] NA > Re(1i * NaN) [1] NA > Im(1i * NaN) [1] NA > Re(NaN + 1i) [1] NA > Im(NaN + 1i) [1] NA
It may be that if as.complex(NaN), and its C equivalent, were changed to return complex(re=NaN,im=NaN) then the arithmetic examples would return NaN. Is there a better way for me to model how NaN's in complex numbers should work or is this a bug? While I was looking into this I noticed a bug in str(): > str(NA_complex_) Error in FUN(X[[1L]], ...) : subscript out of bounds Bill Dunlap Spotfire, TIBCO Software wdunlap tibco.com ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
