Dear Martin,
Thank you for following up.
I appreciate that this is entrenched behaviour and that changing the
documentation may be preferable to changing the code in practice, and
accordingly I filed this as a documentation bug earlier today
(#16493).
But I don't agree that the current behaviour
Dear Jon,
thank you for raising the issue,
> Jon Clayden
> on Tue, 28 Jul 2015 12:14:48 +0100 writes:
> Sorry; minor clarification. The actual test criterion in the example I
> gave is of course abs((0.1-0.102)/0.1) < 0.01, not abs(0.1) < 0.01. In
> any case, this does not match (my
Sorry; minor clarification. The actual test criterion in the example I
gave is of course abs((0.1-0.102)/0.1) < 0.01, not abs(0.1) < 0.01. In
any case, this does not match (my reading of) the docs, and the result
is not `TRUE`.
Regards,
Jon
On 28 July 2015 at 11:58, Jon Clayden wrote:
> Dear al
Dear all,
The documentation for `all.equal.numeric` says
Numerical comparisons for ‘scale = NULL’ (the default) are done by
first computing the mean absolute difference of the two numerical
vectors. If this is smaller than ‘tolerance’ or not finite,
absolute differences are used,
