Re: [Rd] seq.int/seq.default

2017-01-04 Thread Mick Jordan
On 1/4/17 8:15 AM, Mick Jordan wrote: Here is another difference that I am guessing is unintended. > y <- seq.int(1L, 3L, length.out=2) > typeof(y) [1] "double" > x <- seq.default(1L, 3L, length.out=2) > typeof(x) [1] "integer" The if (by == R_MissingArg) branch at line 842 doesn't contain a ch

Re: [Rd] seq.int/seq.default

2017-01-04 Thread Mick Jordan
On 1/4/17 1:26 AM, Martin Maechler wrote: Mick Jordan on Tue, 3 Jan 2017 07:57:15 -0800 writes: > This is a message for someone familiar with the implementation. > Superficially the R code for seq.default and the C code for seq.int > appear to be semantically very similar. M

Re: [Rd] seq.int/seq.default

2017-01-04 Thread Martin Maechler
> Mick Jordan > on Tue, 3 Jan 2017 07:57:15 -0800 writes: > This is a message for someone familiar with the implementation. > Superficially the R code for seq.default and the C code for seq.int > appear to be semantically very similar. My question is whether, in fact,