The question which is whether the way identical works is desirable
or intended.
On 7/15/07, miguel manese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I mean, starting 2.4 not all row names are stored as characters, some
> are stored as integers.
>
> On 7/16/07, miguel manese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I was
I mean, starting 2.4 not all row names are stored as characters, some
are stored as integers.
On 7/16/07, miguel manese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was bit by this before. row.names are supposed to be characters, and
> they are until around 2.3 iirc. Then at 2.4, they started storing it
> as in
I was bit by this before. row.names are supposed to be characters, and
they are until around 2.3 iirc. Then at 2.4, they started storing it
as integers presumably to save space (and probably because ints are
more low-maintenance data types than strings). So to the user (e.g.
through row.names() ) t
Below x1, x2 and x3 all have the same data and all have the same value
for row.names(x); however, the internal values of their row.names differ.
The internal value of row.names is c(NA, -4L) for x1, c(NA, 4L) for x2 and
c("1", "2", "3", "4") for x3; nevertheless, identical regards x1 and x2 as
iden
