Seth Falcon wrote: > On 29 Jan 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >>On Sun, 29 Jan 2006, Elizabeth Purdom wrote: >> >> >>>I came across the following behavior, which seems illogical to me. >> >>What did you expect and why? >> >> >>>I don't know if it is a bug or if I'm missing something: >>> >>> >>>>all(logical(0)) >>> >>>[1] TRUE >> >>All the values are true, all none of them. > > > I thought all the values are false, all none of them, because there > aren't any that are true: > > any(logical(0)) > [1] FALSE > > I can see how someone might expect an error, or NA, or FALSE in the > above two cases. It is harder for me to see when all(logical(0)) > being TRUE would be useful.
Current behaviour is consistent in so far that identical(all(x), !any(!x)) is TRUE and definition of any() is obvious. Uwe > > glass-is-half-emptily-yours, > > + seth > > ______________________________________________ > [email protected] mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help > PLEASE do read the posting guide! http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html ______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide! http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
