Thanks Duncan.
wrt question 4, I see your point about passing arguments. Maybe R
could do with a value "MISSING" or "DEFAULT" for this and other
similar purposes. The test for is.na can be frustrating when the
argument (when not NA) has length greater than 1 as it produces a
warning. But in some situations NULL won't suffice. Consider this
contrived (and simplified) example to demonstrate the sort of
situation I mean (contrived in that test for NA is not required for
the case of setdiff).
mapply(function(x, y, z) {
if(!is.na(y)) x <- setdiff(x, y)
z[x]
}, x, c(NA, x[-length(x)]), MoreArgs = list(z), SIMPLIFY=F)
where x is a list (and z a vector). One should really make the test
"if(length(y) > 1 && !is.na(y))"... but is there a nicer way?
Thanks again,
Simion
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 8:41 PM, Duncan Murdoch <murdoch.dun...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12-07-02 10:53 PM, Simon Knapp wrote:
<snip>
>> 4) Is it better to check for arguments that are missing, or use a
>> default value of, say, NA; i.e. is missing(arg) preferable to
>> is.na(arg)?
>
>
> That depends. It's easier to set an argument to a special value in a call
> from another function than it is to conditionally set it to be missing, but
> there are only a couple of general purpose choices for "missing" values: NA
> and NULL, and you might want a user to be able to specify those. (You can
> also use negative values for counts, etc., in particular contexts.)
<snip>
> Duncan Murdoch
______________________________________________
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
