> Mark van der Loo
> on Mon, 27 Apr 2015 10:26:32 +0200 writes:
> Dear Martin, Does the work on nchar mean that bugs #16090
> and #16091 will be resolved [1,2]?
> Thanks, Mark
> [1] https://bugs.r-project.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=16090
> [2] https://bugs.r-p
Thanks.
It is up again.
Bill
> On Apr 26, 2015, at 12:53 PM, Uwe Ligges
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 26.04.2015 13:23, William Revelle wrote:
>> This still seems to be the case.
>>
>> I tried uploading the most recent version of psych and got as far as the
>> Step 3 page which says that it has sen
> On 27 Apr 2015, at 13:48 , Hadley Wickham wrote:
>
> Sometimes the absence of a name is maked by an NA:
>
> x <- 1:2
> names(x)[[1]] <- "a"
> names(x)
> # [1] "a" NA
>
> Whereas other times its
>
> y <- c(a = 1, 2)
> names(y)
> # [1] "a" ""
>
> Is this deliberate? The help for names() is a
In `?names`:
If ‘value’ is shorter than ‘x’, it is extended by character ‘NA’s
to the length of ‘x’.
So it is as documented.
That said, it's somewhat surprising that both NA and "" serve as a
placeholder for a 'missing name'; I believe they're treated
identically by R under the hood (e
There is no inconsistency. Documentation of `names` says "...value
should be a character vector of up to the same length as x..."
In the first definition your character vector is not the same length
as length of x, so you enforce NA by not defining value[2]
x <- 1:2
value<-c("a")
value[2]
[1] NA
Sometimes the absence of a name is maked by an NA:
x <- 1:2
names(x)[[1]] <- "a"
names(x)
# [1] "a" NA
Whereas other times its
y <- c(a = 1, 2)
names(y)
# [1] "a" ""
Is this deliberate? The help for names() is a bit murky, but an
example shows the NA behaviour.
Hadley
--
http://had.co.nz/
_
Dear Martin,
Does the work on nchar mean that bugs #16090 and #16091 will be resolved
[1,2]?
Thanks,
Mark
[1] https://bugs.r-project.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=16090
[2] https://bugs.r-project.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=16091
On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 11:06 PM, James Cloos wrote:
> >>
