James W. MacDonald wrote: > Wacek Kusnierczyk wrote: >> do they make pompous claims about their software and disregarding claims >> about others' as well? > > My mistake. I thought your concern was for the quality of the software > (quality of course being defined by a certain committee of one). But > it appears this is of a more personal nature, so I'll let you get back > to tilting at windmills. >
your mistake. the point was, claims have been made here to the effect that (a) for rounding off a 5, the IEC 60559 standard is expected to be used, (b) round in r complies with the standard, (c) it is rare for round() to be called explicitly in R code: rounding is usually going on inside print routines. in addition, (d) not complying with the standard was called 'excel bug'. as you can clearly see from the examples, something is wrong with (a) + (b) + (c), and that's what i raise as a non-negligible issue. i haven't seen perl folks making any claims of the (a)-(c) sort, and neither being rude the (d) style. (it does not mean, of course, that they haven't made such claims.) i have no idea why i would have to complain to perl people about an apparent logical inconsistency in what the chief r core developer says; do you? i also have no idea why you would need to try to turn my well-grounded remark into tilting at windmills; if that's not silly, something's clearly wrong with me. vQ ______________________________________________ R-help@r-project.org 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.
