most likely L comes from Michel or Obelisk. http://img.izing.ml/MARSHALL.html = why you are making Mars colonization (and space) "just a game" http://img.izing.ml/IT.html = why i could care less. ᐧ
On Sun, Aug 26, 2018 at 11:30 PM, William Dunlap via R-devel < r-devel@r-project.org> wrote: > > the lack of a decimal place had historically not been significant > > Version 4 of S (c. 1991) and versions of S+ based on it treated a sequence > of digits without a decimal point as integer. > > Bill Dunlap > TIBCO Software > wdunlap tibco.com > > On Sat, Aug 25, 2018 at 4:33 PM, Duncan Murdoch <murdoch.dun...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > On 25/08/2018 4:49 PM, Hervé Pagès wrote: > > > >> The choice of the L suffix in R to mean "R integer type", which > >> is mapped to the "int" type at the C level, and NOT to the "long int" > >> type, is really unfortunate as it seems to be misleading and confusing > >> a lot of people. > >> > > > > Can you provide any evidence of that (e.g. a link to a message from one > of > > these people)? I think a lot of people don't really know about the L > > suffix, but that's different from being confused or misleaded by it. > > > > And if you make a criticism like that, it would really be fair to suggest > > what R should have done instead. I can't think of anything better, given > > that "i" was already taken, and that the lack of a decimal place had > > historically not been significant. Using "I" *would* have been confusing > > (3i versus 3I being very different). Deciding that 3 suddenly became an > > integer value different from 3. would have led to lots of inefficient > > conversions (since stats mainly deals with floating point values). > > > > Duncan Murdoch > > > > > > > >> The fact that nowadays "int" and "long int" have the same size on most > >> platforms is only anecdotal here. > >> > >> Just my 2 cents. > >> > >> H. > >> > >> On 08/25/2018 10:01 AM, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> On 25 August 2018 at 09:28, Carl Boettiger wrote: > >>> | I always thought it meant "Long" (I'm assuming R's integers are long > >>> | integers in C sense (iirrc one can declare 'long x', and it being > >>> common to > >>> | refer to integers as "longs" in the same way we use "doubles" to > mean > >>> | double precision floating point). But pure speculation on my part, > so > >>> I'm > >>> | curious! > >>> > >>> It does per my copy (dated 1990 !!) of the 2nd ed of Kernighan & > >>> Ritchie. It > >>> explicitly mentions (sec 2.2) that 'int' may be 16 or 32 bits, and > >>> 'long' is > >>> 32 bit; and (in sec 2.3) introduces the I, U, and L labels for > >>> constants. So > >>> "back then when" 32 bit was indeed long. And as R uses 32 bit integers > >>> ... > >>> > >>> (It is all murky because the size is an implementation detail and later > >>> "essentially everybody" moved to 32 bit integers and 64 bit longs as > the > >>> 64 > >>> bit architectures became prevalent. Which is why when it matters one > >>> should > >>> really use more explicit types like int32_t or int64_t.) > >>> > >>> Dirk > >>> > >>> > >> > > ______________________________________________ > > R-devel@r-project.org mailing list > > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel > > > > [[alternative HTML version deleted]] > > ______________________________________________ > R-devel@r-project.org mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel > [[alternative HTML version deleted]] ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel