Hmm, it is not actually at odds with help(c), it is just that the autocoercion
works different that it used to, so that
as.complex(NA) == as.complex(NA_real) == NA_real_+0i)
which now differs from
NA_complex
although both print as NA.
I haven't been quite alert when this change was discussed
> Michael Chirico
> on Sun, 5 Nov 2023 09:41:42 -0800 writes:
> This is another follow-up to the thread from September
> "Recent changes to as.complex(NA_real_)".
> A test in data.table was broken by the changes for NA
> coercion to complex; the breakage essentially c
Dear List,
I'm writing to gauge interest in new syntax for positional-only
function parameters to be added to R.
The pattern of functions accepting other functions as inputs and
passing additional ... arguments to them is prevalent throughout
the R ecosystem. Currently, however, all such function
Hi all,
In the next release of R (4.4) the option to obtain a paired t.test with
the formula interface for "long" data has been removed:
t.test(x ~ group, paired = TRUE) # now results in an error.
Exploring how one might obtain a paired t.test, there seems to be some
inconsistency between the fo
Thanks Martin. My hang-up was not on what the outcome of as.complex(NA)
should be, but rather, how I should read code like c(x, y) generally. Till
now, I have thought of it like 'c(x, y)' is c(as(x, typeof(y)), y)` when
"type(y) > type(x)". Basically in my mind, "coercion" in R <->
as.(.) (or coerc
