I have not read the manual, but I drew 10000 random normal vectors and 10000 random Poisson vectors of length 10000 and was unable to reproduce this behavior. Can you provide an example (self-contained code) that reproduces this problem?
Thanks, Daniel Jeanne M. Spicer wrote: > > The summary function behaves inconsistently with data frame columns, e.g. > > summary(rock) #max of area 12212, correct > summary(rock$area) #max of area 12210, incorrect max > > I know that > summary(rock$area, digits=5) > will correct the error (I DID read the manual). But my point is the > inconsistency, because I get the correct answer without having to add the > digits option in the first statement when referring to the full dataframe. > This is one of the first functions that beginners use and if they have to > RTM and tinker with options before they can get a consistent value for the > max of an integer column, it is off-putting to say the least. At worst it > confirms the skeptic's suspicion that open-source software is a bit flaky. > Would it be out of line to report this to r-bugs -- at least to improve on > the documentation? > > -jms > r2.13.1 maclion > > > [[alternative HTML version deleted]] > > ______________________________________________ > R-help@ mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help > PLEASE do read the posting guide > http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html > and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code. > -- View this message in context: http://r.789695.n4.nabble.com/inconsistent-behavior-of-summary-function-tp3869906p3870106.html Sent from the R help mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ______________________________________________ R-help@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.