On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 5:58 PM Martin Maechler <maech...@stat.math.ethz.ch>
wrote:
>
> I agree "in theory".
> Thank you, Henrik, for bringing it up!
>
> In practice I think we should start having a warning signalled.
>
I agree. I wouldn't know who would count on the automatic selection of the
first value, but better safe than sorry.
> I have checked the source code in the mean time, and the check
> is really very cheap
> { because it can/should be done after checking isNumber(): so
> then we know we have an atomic and can use XLENGTH() }
>
>
That was my idea as well after going through the source code. I didn't want
to state it as I don't know enough of the code base and couldn't see if
there were complications I missed. Thank you for confirming!
Cheers
Joris
--
Joris Meys
Statistical consultant
Department of Data Analysis and Mathematical Modelling
Ghent University
Coupure Links 653, B-9000 Gent (Belgium)
<https://maps.google.com/?q=Coupure+links+653,%C2%A0B-9000+Gent,%C2%A0Belgium&entry=gmail&source=g>
-----------
Biowiskundedagen 2017-2018
http://www.biowiskundedagen.ugent.be/
-------------------------------
Disclaimer : http://helpdesk.ugent.be/e-maildisclaimer.php
[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
______________________________________________
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
