Fantastic!!
Thanks,
Avi
On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 11:14 AM Spencer Graves <spencer.gra...@prodsyse.com>
wrote:
>
>
> On 2020-01-22 02:54, Martin Maechler wrote:
> >>>>>> Martin Maechler
> >>>>>> on Tue, 21 Jan 2020 09:25:19 +0100 writes:
> >>>>>> Ben Bolker
> >>>>>> on Mon, 20 Jan 2020 12:54:52 -0500 writes:
> > >> Ugh, sounds like competing priorities.
> >
> > > indeed.
> >
> > >> * maintain type consistency
> > >> * minimize storage (= current version, since 3.0.0)
> > >> * maximize utility for large lambda (= proposed change)
> > >> * keep user interface, and code, simple (e.g., it would be easy
> enough
> > >> to add a switch that provided user control of int vs double
> return value)
> > >> * backward compatibility
> >
> > > Last night, it came to my mind that we should do what we have
> > > been doing in quite a few places in R, the last couple of years:
> >
> > > Return integer when possible, and switch to return double when
> > > integers don't fit.
> >
> > > We've been doing so even for 1:N (well, now with additional
> ALTREP wrapper),
> > > seq(), and even the fundamental length() function.
> >
> > > So I sat down and implemented it .. and it seemed to work
> > > perfectly: Returning the same random numbers as now, but
> > > switching to use double (instead of returning NAs) when the
> > > values are too large.
> >
> > > I'll probably commit that to R-devel quite soonish.
> > > Martin
> >
> > Committed in svn rev 77690; this is really very advantageous, as
> > in some cases / applications or even just limit cases, you'd
> > easily get into overflow sitations.
> >
> > The new R 4.0.0 behavior is IMO "the best of" being memory
> > efficient (integer storage) in most cases (back compatible to R 3.x.x)
> and
> > returning desired random numbers in large cases (compatible to R <=
> 2.x.x).
> >
> > Martin
>
>
> Wunderbar! Sehr gut gemacht! ("Wonderful! Very well done!") Thanks,
> Spencer
> >
> > >> On 2020-01-20 12:33 p.m., Martin Maechler wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> Benjamin Tyner
> > >>>>>>>> on Mon, 20 Jan 2020 08:10:49 -0500 writes:
> > >>>
> > >>> > On 1/20/20 4:26 AM, Martin Maechler wrote:
> > >>> >> Coming late here -- after enjoying a proper weekend ;-) --
> > >>> >> I have been agreeing (with Spencer, IIUC) on this for a long
> > >>> >> time (~ 3 yrs, or more?), namely that I've come to see it as
> a
> > >>> >> "design bug" that rpois() {and similar} must return return
> typeof() "integer".
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >> More strongly, I'm actually pretty convinced they should
> return
> > >>> >> (integer-valued) double instead of NA_integer_ and for that
> > >>> >> reason should always return double:
> > >>> >> Even if we have (hopefully) a native 64bit integer in R,
> > >>> >> 2^64 is still teeny tiny compared .Machine$double.max
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >> (and then maybe we'd have .Machine$longdouble.max which
> would
> > >>> >> be considerably larger than double.max unless on Windows,
> where
> > >>> >> the wise men at Microsoft decided to keep their workload
> simple
> > >>> >> by defining "long double := double" - as 'long double'
> > >>> >> unfortunately is not well defined by C standards)
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >> Martin
> > >>> >>
> > >>> > Martin if you are in favor, then certainly no objection from
> me! ;-)
> > >>>
> > >>> > So now what about other discrete distributions e.g. could a
> similar
> > >>> > enhancement apply here?
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> >> rgeom(10L, 1e-10)
> > >>> > [1] NA 1503061294 NA NA
> 1122447583 NA
> > >>> > [7] NA NA NA NA
> > >>> > Warning message:
> > >>> > In rgeom(10L, 1e-10) : NAs produced
> > >>>
> > >>> yes, of course there are several such distributions.
> > >>>
> > >>> It's really something that should be discussed (possibly not
> > >>> here, .. but then I've started it here ...).
> > >>>
> > >>> The NEWS for R 3.0.0 contain (in NEW FEATURES) :
> > >>>
> > >>> * Functions rbinom(), rgeom(), rhyper(), rpois(), rnbinom(),
> > >>> rsignrank() and rwilcox() now return integer (not double)
> > >>> vectors. This halves the storage requirements for large
> > >>> simulations.
> > >>>
> > >>> and what I've been suggesting is to revert this change
> > >>> (svn rev r60225-6) which was purposefully and diligently done by
> > >>> a fellow R core member, so indeed must be debatable.
> > >>>
> > >>> Martin
> > >>>
> > >>> ______________________________________________
> > >>> R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
> > >>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
> > >>>
> >
> > >> ______________________________________________
> > >> R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
> > >> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
> >
> > > ______________________________________________
> > > R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
> > > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
> >
> > ______________________________________________
> > R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
> > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>
> ______________________________________________
> R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>
--
Sent from Gmail Mobile
[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
______________________________________________
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
