On Apr 26, 2014, at 4:59 PM, Martin Maechler <maech...@stat.math.ethz.ch> wrote:
> >> I think there should be two separate discussions: > >> a) have an option (argument to type.convert and possibly read.table) to >> enable/disable this behavior. I'm strongly in favor of this. > > In my (not committed) version of R-devel, I now have > >> str(type.convert(format(1/3, digits=17), exact=TRUE)) > Factor w/ 1 level "0.33333333333333331": 1 >> str(type.convert(format(1/3, digits=17), exact=FALSE)) > num 0.333 > > where the 'exact' argument name has been ``imported'' from the > underlying C code. > Looks good to me! > <snip> > > Instead of only TRUE/FALSE, we could consider NA with > semantics "FALSE + warning" or also "TRUE + warning”. > > >> b) decide what the default for a) will be. I have no strong opinion, I can >> see arguments in both directions > > I think many have seen the good arguments in both directions. > I'm still strongly advocating that we value long term stability > higher here, and revert to more compatibility with the many > years of previous versions. > > If we'd use a default of 'exact=NA', I'd like it to mean > FALSE + warning, but would not oppose much to TRUE + warning. > I vote for the default to be “exact=NA” meaning “FALSE + warning" -Greg ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel