Prof Brian Ripley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 15 May 2006, Seth Falcon wrote:
>> Is it enough to check for NA_LOGICAL or should all NA_* values be
>> checked for? Is there an easier/better way to do this sort of check?
>
> NA_LOGICAL and NA_INTEGER are the same value, and only NA_LOGICA
On Mon, 15 May 2006, Seth Falcon wrote:
> Prof Brian Ripley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> On Sun, 14 May 2006, Seth Falcon wrote:
>>> I wonder if ScalarLogical should force 0/1:
>>
>> Not a good idea: what about the third value, NA?
>
> Indeed, I should have been sleeping (or perhaps I was alre
Prof Brian Ripley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 14 May 2006, Seth Falcon wrote:
>> I wonder if ScalarLogical should force 0/1:
>
> Not a good idea: what about the third value, NA?
Indeed, I should have been sleeping (or perhaps I was already :-)
Is it enough to check for NA_LOGICAL or sh
On Sun, 14 May 2006, Seth Falcon wrote:
> Martin Morgan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> bindingIsLocked applied to a locked binding returns a 'logical' that
>> is niether true nor false.
>
> Is this a philosophical question? :-)
But there is such a value defined for R logical vectors.
> Here's
Martin Morgan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> bindingIsLocked applied to a locked binding returns a 'logical' that
> is niether true nor false.
Is this a philosophical question? :-)
Here's what I think is going on:
BINDING_IS_LOCKED does not return 0/1, but the result of a bit op that
will be eit
bindingIsLocked applied to a locked binding returns a 'logical' that
is niether true nor false.
Martin
> e <- new.env()
> e$x <- 1
> e$y <- 2
> lockBinding("x", e)
NULL
> bindingIsLocked("x", e)
[1] TRUE
> bindingIsLocked("x", e)==TRUE
[1] FALSE
> bindingIsLocked("x", e)==FALSE
[1] FALSE
> bindin
