Sorry for being unclear. I was commenting on the edge case that
Gregory brought up when calling zapsmall() with a vector of small
values. I thought Gregory was asking for thoughts on that as well, but
maybe I misunderstood. IMO it would be weird for zapsmall() to make a
small scalar zero but not a
I think what's been missed is that zapsmall works relative to the absolute
largest value in the vector. Hence if there's only one
item in the vector, it is the largest, so its not zapped. The function's
raison d'etre isn't to replace absolutely small values,
but small values relative to the largest
I'm really confused. Steve's example wasn't a scalar x, it was a
vector. Your zapsmall() proposal wouldn't zap it to zero, and I don't
see why summary() would if it was using your proposal.
Duncan Murdoch
On 17/12/2023 8:43 a.m., Gregory R. Warnes wrote:
Isn’t that the correct outcome? The
Isn’t that the correct outcome? The user can change the number of digits if
they want to see small values…
--
Change your thoughts and you change the world.
--Dr. Norman Vincent Peale
> On Dec 17, 2023, at 12:11 AM, Steve Martin wrote:
>
> Zapping a vector of small numbers to zero would c
