Still, from a user's perspective this behavior is somewhat irritating. Wouldn't
it be better to rewrite unique.matrix to use formatC or sprintf instead of
as.character, on which paste in line 9 implicitly relies, at least in R version
2.12.2 (2011-02-25)?
For example, use
temp - apply(x,
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 01:19:48AM -0800, Henrik Bengtsson wrote:
It should be possible to run unique()/duplicated() column by column
and incrementally update the set of unique/duplicated rows. This
would avoid any coercing. The benefit should be even greater for
data.frame():s.
This is a
On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 02:11:49PM -0500, Simon Urbanek wrote:
match() is a red herring here -- it is really a very specific thing that has
to do with the fact that you're running unique() on a matrix. Also it's much
easier to reproduce:
x=c(1,1+0.2e-15)
x
[1] 1 1
sprintf(%a,x)
[1]
It should be possible to run unique()/duplicated() column by column
and incrementally update the set of unique/duplicated rows. This
would avoid any coercing. The benefit should be even greater for
data.frame():s.
My $.02
/Henrik
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 12:29 AM, Petr Savicky
Simon pointed out that the issue I observed was due to internal
behaviour of unique.matrix.
I had looked carefully at the manual pages before posting the question
and this was not mentioned. Perhaps an addition could be made?
Terry T.
__
match() is a red herring here -- it is really a very specific thing that has to
do with the fact that you're running unique() on a matrix. Also it's much
easier to reproduce:
x=c(1,1+0.2e-15)
x
[1] 1 1
sprintf(%a,x)
[1] 0x1p+0 0x1.1p+0
unique(x)
[1] 1 1
