Hi again (, I am the PO from my own email account) I agree that the word "basically" puts the NA issues aside. But my point is that R subsetting behavior when there are NAs in a logical index is quite tricky to say the less, and deserves the trouble of pointing it out in every place it is appropiate. As "which()" is the function I use to overcome this issue, I thought it would be good to emphasize that it solves this situation in a different way that the subsetting operation does. I am aware that it is clearly stated above in the help page though. But I still would change the expression rather than "hiding" this distinction. And the "diplomatic refinement seems even better to me.
______________________________________________ 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.
