On Wed, 23 Feb 2011, Hervé Pagès wrote:
I get this (with R-2.12 and R-2.13, didn't try with earlier versions):
max(c(NaN, NA))
[1] NA
max(c(NA, NaN))
[1] NaN
I get the same thing with min().
The fact that the result of 'max(x)' or 'min(x)' depends on the order
of the elements in 'x' is surprising. It also seems to contradict the
man page:
By definition the min/max of a numeric vector containing an ‘NaN’
is ‘NaN’, except that the min/max of any vector containing an ‘NA’
is ‘NA’ even if it also contains an ‘NaN’.
This seemed to depend on the compiler, and in your case the compiler
has optimized away the code to achieve this. I've changed the code
in R-devel to something that seems to be more robust. Note that the
comment did not apply to max(NA, NaN), but that should also now be
consistent.
Cheers,
H.
--
Hervé Pagès
Program in Computational Biology
Division of Public Health Sciences
Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center
1100 Fairview Ave. N, M2-B876
P.O. Box 19024
Seattle, WA 98109-1024
E-mail: hpa...@fhcrc.org
Phone: (206) 667-5791
Fax: (206) 667-1319
______________________________________________
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
--
Brian D. Ripley, rip...@stats.ox.ac.uk
Professor of Applied Statistics, http://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/~ripley/
University of Oxford, Tel: +44 1865 272861 (self)
1 South Parks Road, +44 1865 272866 (PA)
Oxford OX1 3TG, UK Fax: +44 1865 272595
______________________________________________
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
