FWIW, I paste below a possible change to the warnings generating part of the
do_matrix function in R/src/main/array.c that adds the kind of warning that
Abby is asking for, and that IMHO would more often help users find bugs in
their code than interfere with intended behaviour.
> matrix (1:6, nrow = 2, ncol = 3)
> matrix (1:12, nrow = 2, ncol = 3)
[,1] [,2] [,3]
[1,] 1 3 5
[2,] 2 4 6
Warning message:
In matrix(1:12, nrow = 2, ncol = 3) :
data length incompatible with size of matrix
> matrix (1:7, nrow = 2, ncol = 3)
Warning messages:
1: In matrix(1:7, nrow = 2, ncol = 3) :
data length [7] is not a sub-multiple or multiple of the number of rows [2]
2: In matrix(1:7, nrow = 2, ncol = 3) :
data length incompatible with size of matrix
> matrix (1:8, nrow = 2, ncol = 3)
Warning messages:
1: In matrix(1:8, nrow = 2, ncol = 3) :
data length [8] is not a sub-multiple or multiple of the number of columns [3]
2: In matrix(1:8, nrow = 2, ncol = 3) :
data length incompatible with size of matrix
> matrix (1:6, nrow = 0, ncol = 0)
<0 x 0 matrix>
> matrix (numeric(0), nrow = 2, ncol = 3)
[,1] [,2] [,3]
[1,] NA NA NA
[2,] NA NA NA
> matrix(1:2, ncol = 8)
[,1] [,2] [,3] [,4] [,5] [,6] [,7] [,8]
[1,] 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2
It would be nice to combine the new warning with that about “...not a
sub-multiple or multiple…” into a single warning, if appropriate (as in two of
the examples above), but that would require bigger surgery way above my
payscale.
Kind regards
Wolfgang Huber
Index: array.c
===================================================================
--- array.c (revision 79951)
+++ array.c (working copy)
@@ -133,18 +133,19 @@
nc = (int) ceil((double) lendat / (double) nr);
}
- if(lendat > 0) {
+ if (lendat > 1) {
R_xlen_t nrc = (R_xlen_t) nr * nc;
- if (lendat > 1 && nrc % lendat != 0) {
+ if ((nrc % lendat) != 0) {
if (((lendat > nr) && (lendat / nr) * nr != lendat) ||
((lendat < nr) && (nr / lendat) * lendat != nr))
warning(_("data length [%d] is not a sub-multiple or multiple
of the number of rows [%d]"), lendat, nr);
else if (((lendat > nc) && (lendat / nc) * nc != lendat) ||
((lendat < nc) && (nc / lendat) * lendat != nc))
- warning(_("data length [%d] is not a sub-multiple or multiple
of the number of columns [%d]"), lendat, nc);
- }
- else if ((lendat > 1) && (nrc == 0)){
+ warning(_("data length [%d] is not a sub-multiple or
multiple of the number of columns [%d]"), lendat, nc);
+ if (nrc == 0)
warning(_("data length exceeds size of matrix"));
+ if (nrc != lendat)
+ warning(_("data length incompatible with size of matrix"));
}
}
------
// And here, for easy checking that part of the code in the new form:
if (lendat > 1) {
R_xlen_t nrc = (R_xlen_t) nr * nc;
if ((nrc % lendat) != 0) {
if (((lendat > nr) && (lendat / nr) * nr != lendat) ||
((lendat < nr) && (nr / lendat) * lendat != nr))
warning(_("data length [%d] is not a sub-multiple or multiple
of the number of rows [%d]"), lendat, nr);
else if (((lendat > nc) && (lendat / nc) * nc != lendat) ||
((lendat < nc) && (nc / lendat) * lendat != nc))
warning(_("data length [%d] is not a sub-multiple or
multiple of the number of columns [%d]"), lendat, nc);
if (nrc == 0)
warning(_("data length exceeds size of matrix"));
if (nrc != lendat)
warning(_("data length incompatible with size of matrix"));
}
}
> Il giorno 2feb2021, alle ore 00:27, Abby Spurdle (/əˈbi/)
> <spurdl...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
>
> So, does that mean that a clean result is contingent on the length of
> the data being a multiple of both the number of rows and columns?
>
> However, this rule is not straightforward.
>
>> #EXAMPLE 1
>> #what I would expect
>> matrix (1:12, 0, 0)
> <0 x 0 matrix>
> Warning message:
> In matrix(1:12, 0, 0) : data length exceeds size of matrix
>
>> #EXAMPLE 2
>> #don't like this
>> matrix (numeric (), 2, 3)
> [,1] [,2] [,3]
> [1,] NA NA NA
> [2,] NA NA NA
>
> The first example is what I would expect, but is inconsistent with the
> previous examples.
> (Because zero is a valid multiple of twelve).
>
> I dislike the second example with recycling of a zero-length vector.
> This *is* covered in the help file, but also seems inconsistent with
> the previous examples.
> (Because two and three are not valid multiples of zero).
>
> Also, I can't think of any reason why someone would want to construct
> a matrix with extra data, and then discard part of it.
> And even if there was, then why not allow an arbitrarily longer length?
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 10:08 PM Martin Maechler
> <maech...@stat.math.ethz.ch> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> Abby Spurdle (/əˈbi/)
>>>>>>> on Mon, 1 Feb 2021 19:50:32 +1300 writes:
>>
>>> I'm a little surprised that the following doesn't trigger an error or a
>>> warning.
>>> matrix (1:256, 8, 8)
>>
>>> The help file says that the main argument is recycled, if it's too short.
>>> But doesn't say what happens if it's too long.
>>
>> It's somewhat subtler than one may assume :
>>
>>> matrix(1:9, 2,3)
>> [,1] [,2] [,3]
>> [1,] 1 3 5
>> [2,] 2 4 6
>> Warning message:
>> In matrix(1:9, 2, 3) :
>> data length [9] is not a sub-multiple or multiple of the number of rows [2]
>>
>>> matrix(1:8, 2,3)
>> [,1] [,2] [,3]
>> [1,] 1 3 5
>> [2,] 2 4 6
>> Warning message:
>> In matrix(1:8, 2, 3) :
>> data length [8] is not a sub-multiple or multiple of the number of columns
>> [3]
>>
>>> matrix(1:12, 2,3)
>> [,1] [,2] [,3]
>> [1,] 1 3 5
>> [2,] 2 4 6
>>>
>>
>> So it looks to me the current behavior is quite on purpose.
>> Are you sure it's not documented at all when reading the docs
>> carefully? (I did *not*, just now).
>
> ______________________________________________
> R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
______________________________________________
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
