On 8/23/20 5:02 PM, Rory Winston wrote:
Hi
I noticed a small inconsistency when using sum() vs cumsum()
I have a char-based series
> tryjpy$long
[1] "0.0022" "-0.0002" "-0.0149" "-0.0023" "-0.0342" "-0.0245" "-0.0022"
[8] "0.0003" "-0.0001" "-0.0004" "-0.0036" "-0.001" "-0.0011" "
> Tomas Kalibera
> on Tue, 25 Aug 2020 09:29:05 +0200 writes:
> On 8/23/20 5:02 PM, Rory Winston wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> I noticed a small inconsistency when using sum() vs cumsum()
>>
>> I have a char-based series
>>
>> > tryjpy$long
>>
>> [1] "
(If I may be so bold, although I think it's unlikely that a majority
would be in favour of this change, and I doubt anyone is actually
proposing it, I think quite a bit more than "a majority" should be
required before a change like this should be allowed.
Considering the feature that cumsum coerce
On 8/22/20 9:33 PM, Jeroen Ooms wrote:
On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 9:10 PM Tomas Kalibera wrote:
On 8/22/20 8:26 PM, Tomas Kalibera wrote:
On 8/22/20 7:58 PM, Jeroen Ooms wrote:
On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 8:39 AM Tomas Kalibera
wrote:
On 8/21/20 11:45 PM, m19tdn+9alxwj7d2bmk--- via R-devel wrote:
Dear R-devel,
I don't think this is expected :
foo <- function() "hello"
trace2 <- function(fun) trace(fun, quote(print("!!!")))
base::fun
# Object with tracing code, class "functionWithTrace"
# Original definition:
# function() "hello"
#
# ## (to see the tracing code, look at body(object))
`unt
Apologies there is one line missing in my last email, the code should be :
foo <- function() "hello"
trace2 <- function(fun) trace(fun, quote(print("!!!")))
trace2(foo) # <- THIS LINE WAS MISSING
base::fun
Best,
Antoine
Le mar. 25 août 2020 à 22:02, Antoine Fabri a
écrit :
> Dear R-devel,
>
>
Hi All,
A twitter user, Mike fc (@coolbutuseless) mentioned today that he was
surprised that repeated NAs weren't treated as a run by the rle function.
Now I know why they are not. NAs represent values which could be the same
or different from eachother if they were known, so from a purely concep
