Hi guys.
Check this out:
NaN +NA
[1] NaN
NA + NaN
[1] NA
I thought + was commutative by definition. What's going on?
R.version
_
platform powerpc-apple-darwin6.8
arch powerpc
os darwin6.8
system powerpc, darwin6.8
status
major1
minor9.0
year 2004
month04
On Tue, 7 Sep 2004, Robin Hankin wrote:
Check this out:
I am unable to reproduce it on any of the 7 different systems I checked
(Solaris, Linux, Windows with various compilers).
NaN +NA
[1] NaN
NA + NaN
[1] NA
I thought + was commutative by definition. What's going on?
It is
On Tue, 2004-09-07 at 12:47, Prof Brian Ripley wrote:
On Tue, 7 Sep 2004, Robin Hankin wrote:
Check this out:
I am unable to reproduce it on any of the 7 different systems I checked
(Solaris, Linux, Windows with various compilers).
NaN +NA
[1] NaN
NA + NaN
[1] NA
I
Dear Professor Ripley
thank you for your reply.
NaN +NA
[1] NaN
NA + NaN
[1] NA
I thought + was commutative by definition. What's going on?
It is clearly not under your compiler/OS. We could add a configure test
for broken systems and fix it in arithmetic.c but it hardly seems
Robin Hankin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dear Professor Ripley
thank you for your reply.
NaN +NA
[1] NaN
NA + NaN
[1] NA
I thought + was commutative by definition. What's going on?
It is clearly not under your compiler/OS. We could add a configure test
for broken
On 7 Sep 2004, Peter Dalgaard wrote:
Robin Hankin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dear Professor Ripley
thank you for your reply.
NaN +NA
[1] NaN
NA + NaN
[1] NA
I thought + was commutative by definition. What's going on?
It is clearly not under your
At 06:17 07/09/2004, you wrote:
Hi guys.
Check this out:
NaN +NA
[1] NaN
NA + NaN
[1] NA
I thought + was commutative by definition. What's going on?
In my version, both cases is NA:
NaN +NA
[1] NA
NA + NaN
[1] NA
R.version
_
platform i386-pc-mingw32
arch i386
os mingw32
