On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 1:31 PM Tomas Kalibera <tomas.kalib...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> [...]
>
> For the reasons I explained, I would be against such a change. Keeping the
> data on the side, as also recommended by others on this list, would allow
> you for a reliable implementation. I don't want to support fragile package
> code building on unspecified R internals, and in this case particularly
> internals that themselves have not stood the test of time, so are at high
> risk of change.
>
I understand, and it makes sense.
We'll have to wait for the R internals to settle (this really is
surprising, I wonder how other software have solved this). In the meantime,
I will probably go ahead with NaNs.
Thank you again,
Adrian
[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
______________________________________________
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
