Hmm. Why not use the same method to guarantee the same result? Or at
least document the possibility that cumsum(x)[length(x)] != sum(x)...
that seems like an easy trap to fall into.
-s
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 11:39 AM, Martin Maechler
<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> "SM" == Stavros Macrakis <[email protected]>
>>>>>> on Wed, 18 Feb 2009 10:00:40 -0500 writes:
>
> SM> Nice! Glad to hear it. It sounds as though it is still possible for
> SM> cumsum(x)[length(x)] to not be exactly equal to sum, though?
>
> Well, possible, probably yes, platform-dependently;
> However I vaguely remember that I didn't see one such case in the few
> experiments I did.
>
> Martin
>
> SM> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 8:03 AM, Martin Maechler
> SM> <[email protected]> wrote:
> SM> ...
> >> o cumsum(x) and cumprod(x) for double precision x now use a long
> >> double accumulator where available and so more closely match
> >> sum() and prod() in potentially being more accurate.
>
______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
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.
