Hmm, the problem I see here is that these implied classes are all inherently
one-off. We also have
> inherits(matrix(1,1,1),"numeric")
[1] FALSE
> is.numeric(matrix(1,1,1))
[1] TRUE
> inherits(1L,"numeric")
[1] FALSE
> is.numeric(1L)
[1] TRUE
and if we start fixing one, we might need to fix all
On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 10:02 AM Pages, Herve wrote:
> That would be awesome! More generally I wonder how feasible it would be
> to fix all these inheritance quirks where inherits(x, "something"),
> is(x, "something"), and is.something(x) disagree. They've been such a
> nuisance for so many years..
On 10/30/19 04:29, Martin Maechler wrote:
>> Gabriel Becker
>> on Tue, 29 Oct 2019 12:43:15 -0700 writes:
>
> > Hi all,
> > So I've started working on this and I ran into something that I didn't
> > know, namely that for x a multi-dimensional (2+) array, head(x) and
>
Hi Martin,
On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 4:30 AM Martin Maechler
wrote:
> > Gabriel Becker
> > on Tue, 29 Oct 2019 12:43:15 -0700 writes:
>
> > Hi all,
> > So I've started working on this and I ran into something that I
> didn't
> > know, namely that for x a multi-dimensional
