Seth Falcon wrote:
> On 30 Jan 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>Current behaviour is consistent in so far that identical(all(x),
>>!any(!x)) is TRUE and definition of any() is obvious.
>
>
> That helps, thanks. I'm not sure I've had enough coffee to continue,
> but, for the set analogy I think we are saying:
>
> logical(0) is the empty set {}.
> Complement of {} is the universal set U.
>
> Then !logical(0) == !{} == U. any(U) is TRUE, isn't it?
Hmmm, "!" is for *logical* negation, and indeed identical(logical(0),
!(logical(0))) is TRUE, hence my first statement holds.
> I guess the real message is that you need to protect yourself by
> testing for positive length first.
Yes, indeed.
Uwe
> + 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
