> Martin Maechler
> on Thu, 5 Jan 2017 12:39:29 +0100 writes:
> Mick Jordan
> on Wed, 4 Jan 2017 08:15:03 -0800 writes:
>> On 1/4/17 1:26 AM, Martin Maechler wrote:
Mick Jordan on Tue, 3 Jan
2017 07:57:15 -0800 writes:
>>> > This is a m
> Mick Jordan
> on Wed, 4 Jan 2017 12:49:41 -0800 writes:
> On 1/4/17 8:15 AM, Mick Jordan wrote:
> Here is another difference that I am guessing is unintended.
>> y <- seq.int(1L, 3L, length.out=2)
>> typeof(y)
> [1] "double"
>> x <- seq.default(1L, 3L, lengt
> Mick Jordan
> on Wed, 4 Jan 2017 08:15:03 -0800 writes:
> On 1/4/17 1:26 AM, Martin Maechler wrote:
>>> Mick Jordan
>>> on Tue, 3 Jan 2017 07:57:15 -0800 writes:
>> > This is a message for someone familiar with the implementation.
>> > Superficially the
On 1/4/17 8:15 AM, Mick Jordan wrote:
Here is another difference that I am guessing is unintended.
> y <- seq.int(1L, 3L, length.out=2)
> typeof(y)
[1] "double"
> x <- seq.default(1L, 3L, length.out=2)
> typeof(x)
[1] "integer"
The if (by == R_MissingArg) branch at line 842 doesn't contain a ch
On 1/4/17 1:26 AM, Martin Maechler wrote:
Mick Jordan
on Tue, 3 Jan 2017 07:57:15 -0800 writes:
> This is a message for someone familiar with the implementation.
> Superficially the R code for seq.default and the C code for seq.int
> appear to be semantically very similar. M
> Mick Jordan
> on Tue, 3 Jan 2017 07:57:15 -0800 writes:
> This is a message for someone familiar with the implementation.
> Superficially the R code for seq.default and the C code for seq.int
> appear to be semantically very similar. My question is whether, in fact,
This is a message for someone familiar with the implementation.
Superficially the R code for seq.default and the C code for seq.int
appear to be semantically very similar. My question is whether, in fact,
it is intended that behave identically for all inputs. I have found two
cases so far wher
