Re: [Rd] Expected behavior from: all(c(NA, NA, NA) < NA, na.rm = TRUE)?

2007-06-20 Thread Peter Dalgaard
Marc Schwartz wrote: > Hi all, > > Came across this curious behavior in: > > R version 2.5.0 Patched (2007-06-05 r41831) > > > A simplified example is: > > >> all(c(NA, NA, NA) > NA, na.rm = TRUE) >> > [1] TRUE > > > Is this expected by definition? > > If one reduces this to individual co

Re: [Rd] Expected behavior from: all(c(NA, NA, NA) < NA, na.rm = TRUE)?

2007-06-20 Thread Marc Schwartz
On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 09:48 -0700, Thomas Lumley wrote: > On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Marc Schwartz wrote: > > > > If my train of thought is correct, it seems to me that the behavior > > above distills down to the comparison between logical(0) and NA, which > > rather than returning NA, returns logical(0)

Re: [Rd] Expected behavior from: all(c(NA, NA, NA) < NA, na.rm = TRUE)?

2007-06-20 Thread Thomas Lumley
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Marc Schwartz wrote: > > If my train of thought is correct, it seems to me that the behavior > above distills down to the comparison between logical(0) and NA, which > rather than returning NA, returns logical(0). > > This would seem appropriate, given that there is no actual c

[Rd] Expected behavior from: all(c(NA, NA, NA) < NA, na.rm = TRUE)?

2007-06-20 Thread Marc Schwartz
Hi all, Came across this curious behavior in: R version 2.5.0 Patched (2007-06-05 r41831) A simplified example is: > all(c(NA, NA, NA) > NA, na.rm = TRUE) [1] TRUE Is this expected by definition? If one reduces this to individual comparisons, such as : > NA > NA [1] NA > all(NA > NA) [1