>>>>> SOEIRO Thomas >>>>> on Wed, 13 Oct 2021 11:12:09 +0000 writes:
> Inline comments below in the previous message I'm not 100% > sure if the current behavior is intended or not. If not, > here is a patch (which I can submit on R Bugzilla if > appropriate): Excuse us for not replying earlier, Thomas, but yes, there is a buglet in generating dimnames when creating table() objects, but I think *not* in the behaviour you want to change because that *is* partly purposeful and not a bug (in code). Rather it's incomplete documentation which currently does not cover that case ... and I see your proposed patch also tries to address the issue of "too terse" documentation. The only bug I see is that here, R> table(warpbreaks[3]) L M H 18 18 18 R> the automatic dnn's (= [d]im[n]ames' [n]ames) are not taken as in the (>= 2)-dim case, R> table(warpbreaks[-1]) tension wool L M H A 9 9 9 B 9 9 9 R> However, I definitely would not want to see anything different than what we see now for R> table(FOOBAR = warpbreaks[-1]) tension wool L M H A 9 9 9 B 9 9 9 R> where indeed, the FOOBAR should be *kept* disregarded (as it should in table(FOOBAR = warpbreaks[3]) once we fix the 1D --- {1-argument with own dimnames} case) and of course, this should also stay as is, undisputedly: R> table(POISSON_7 = rpois(100, 7)) POISSON_7 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 4 5 14 16 20 8 8 13 1 5 3 2 1 R> I'm fine if you move this to R bugzilla {where it remains more easily findable in say 1 year's time}. Thank you for the report and diagnosis so far! Martin ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel