Martin Maechler wrote: >>>>>> "WK" == Wacek Kusnierczyk <waclaw.marcin.kusnierc...@idi.ntnu.no> >>>>>> on Mon, 23 Feb 2009 12:06:32 +0100 writes: >>>>>> > > Thank you, Wacek, > though .. "wrong mailing list" >
apologies. i was actually asking for explanation, assuming that it might be my misunderstanding, rather than reporting a bug. > WK> the man page for relational operators (see, e.g., ?'<') says: > WK> " > WK> Binary operators which allow the comparison of values in atomic > vectors. > > WK> Arguments: > > WK> x, y: atomic vectors, symbols, calls, or other objects for which > WK> methods have been written. > WK> " > > WK> it is somewhat surprizing that the following works: > > WK> '<'(1) > WK> # logical(0) > > WK> '<'() > WK> # logical(0) > > WK> '<'(1,2,3) > WK> # TRUE > > a bit surprising (sic!), indeed, even for me. > Thanks for your notice and report! > you're welcome. shouldn't the tests have captured it? i think you should have a check for every feature following from the docs. plus those undocumented, but assumed by the developers. > If you'd looked a bit in the sources, you'd seen that they > really are supposed to be binary only. > it wouldn't be nonsensical to let them be of arbitrary arity (in a well-documented manner), though it might confuse users. > A very small change in the sources does accomplish this, passes > the standard checks (and I cannot imagine reasonable code that > would have relied on the more lenient behavior), so > this will have changed in one of the next versions of R-devel. > thanks. just a question (i haven't checked the sources, maybe i should): what is it that happens when one of the operators is called with n = 0 or 1 argument? how does it come up with logical(0) rather than NA? cheers, vQ ______________________________________________ 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.