> Suharto Anggono Suharto Anggono via R-devel
> on Sat, 1 Apr 2017 14:10:06 + writes:
> I am raising this again.
> With
> z <- complex(real = c(0,NaN,NaN), imaginary = c(NA,NA,0)) ,
> results of
> sapply(z, match, table = z)
I am raising this again.
With
z <- complex(real = c(0,NaN,NaN), imaginary = c(NA,NA,0)) ,
results of
sapply(z, match, table = z)
and
match(z, z)
are different in R 3.4.0 alpha. I think they should be the same.
I suggest changing 'cequal' in unique.c such that a complex number that has
both NA
chler <maech...@stat.math.ethz.ch> wrote:
Subject: Re: [Rd] complex NA's match(), etc: not back-compatible change
proposal
Cc: R-devel@r-project.org
Date: Monday, 30 May, 2016, 5:48 PM
>>>>> Suharto Anggono
>>>>> on Sat, 28 May
2016 09:34:08 + wri
nce Problem 1 is solved
according to '1 A', because it least length(unique(.)) would
not change: It would contain *one* z[] with an NA, and all the
other z[]s.
Opinions ? Thank you in advance for chiming in..
Martin Maechler,
ETH Zurich
> On Mon, 23/5/16, Martin Maechler &
NA NaN+NaNi
> length(print(unique(z)))
[1] NA NaN+0i
[1] 2
> length(print(unique(c(z[8], z[-8]
[1] NA
[1] 1
On Mon, 23/5/16, Martin Maechler <maech...@stat.math.ethz.ch> wrote:
Subject: Re: [Rd] complex NA's match(), etc: not ba
> Martin Maechler
> on Tue, 10 May 2016 16:08:39 +0200 writes:
> This is an RFC / announcement related to the 2nd part of PR#16885
> https://bugs.r-project.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16885
> about complex NA's.
> The (somewhat rare)
This is an RFC / announcement related to the 2nd part of PR#16885
https://bugs.r-project.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16885
about complex NA's.
The (somewhat rare) incompatibility in R's 3.3.0 match() behavior for the
case of complex numbers with NA & NaN's {which has been fixed for R 3.3.0