Well, "Basically, " is an excuse for not being accurate. Making the code more complex doesn't really help the explanation. It could be better to just add "(except for NA handling)" or so.
-pd > On 16 Nov 2018, at 11:08 , buzon informatica, ige <ige.informat...@ige.eu> > wrote: > > The which() function help page states that, in the default case, what the > function returns is: > " Basically, the result is (1:length(x))[x]." > That would only be true if there are not any NA values in x. I think it would > be more accurate to say: > "Basically, the result is (1:length(x))[!is.na(x) & x]." > > The "strange" (IMHO) behavior of logical indexing in R makes it necessary to > exclude NA values. > For this reason, I use to wrap logical indices with which(). I would have > written the above expression as: > (1:length(x))[which(x)] > But that would have been a really bad explanation of how the which() function > works ;) > > [[alternative HTML version deleted]] > > ______________________________________________ > R-help@r-project.org mailing list -- To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help > PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html > and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code. -- Peter Dalgaard, Professor, Center for Statistics, Copenhagen Business School Solbjerg Plads 3, 2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark Phone: (+45)38153501 Office: A 4.23 Email: pd....@cbs.dk Priv: pda...@gmail.com ______________________________________________ R-help@r-project.org mailing list -- To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
