Re: [Rd] seq.int/seq.default

> Martin Maechler > on Thu, 5 Jan 2017 12:39:29 +0100 writes: > Mick Jordan > on Wed, 4 Jan 2017 08:15:03 -0800 writes: >> On 1/4/17 1:26 AM, Martin Maechler wrote: Mick Jordan

Re: [Rd] seq.int/seq.default

> Mick Jordan > on Wed, 4 Jan 2017 12:49:41 -0800 writes: > On 1/4/17 8:15 AM, Mick Jordan wrote: > Here is another difference that I am guessing is unintended. >> y <- seq.int(1L, 3L, length.out=2) >> typeof(y) > [1] "double" >> x <-

Re: [Rd] seq.int/seq.default

> Mick Jordan > on Wed, 4 Jan 2017 08:15:03 -0800 writes: > On 1/4/17 1:26 AM, Martin Maechler wrote: >>> Mick Jordan >>> on Tue, 3 Jan 2017 07:57:15 -0800 writes: >> > This is a message for someone familiar

Re: [Rd] seq.int/seq.default

On 1/4/17 8:15 AM, Mick Jordan wrote: Here is another difference that I am guessing is unintended. > y <- seq.int(1L, 3L, length.out=2) > typeof(y) [1] "double" > x <- seq.default(1L, 3L, length.out=2) > typeof(x) [1] "integer" The if (by == R_MissingArg) branch at line 842 doesn't contain a

Re: [Rd] seq.int/seq.default

On 1/4/17 1:26 AM, Martin Maechler wrote: Mick Jordan on Tue, 3 Jan 2017 07:57:15 -0800 writes: > This is a message for someone familiar with the implementation. > Superficially the R code for seq.default and the C code for seq.int > appear to be

Re: [Rd] seq.int/seq.default

> Mick Jordan > on Tue, 3 Jan 2017 07:57:15 -0800 writes: > This is a message for someone familiar with the implementation. > Superficially the R code for seq.default and the C code for seq.int > appear to be semantically very similar. My question

[Rd] seq.int/seq.default

This is a message for someone familiar with the implementation. Superficially the R code for seq.default and the C code for seq.int appear to be semantically very similar. My question is whether, in fact, it is intended that behave identically for all inputs. I have found two cases so far