Vadim Patsalo wrote:
Patrick and Bert,
Thank you both for you replies to my question. I see how my naïve expectations
fail to floating point arithmetic. However, I still believe there is an
underlying problem.
It seems to me that when asked,
c(7.7, 7.8, 7.9) %in% seq(4, 8, by=0.1)
[1] TRUE FALSE TRUE
R should return TRUE in all instances. %in% is testing set membership... in
that way, shouldn't it be using all.equal() (instead of the implicit '=='), as
Patrick suggests the R inferno?
Is there a convenient way to test set membership using all.equal()? In
particular, can you do it (conveniently) when the lengths of the numeric lists
are different?
This looks like a job for zapsmall; check ?zapsmall.
-Peter Ehlers
Thanks again for your reply!
Vadim
On Nov 13, 2010, at 5:46 AM, Patrick Burns wrote:
See Circle 1 of 'The R Inferno'.
______________________________________________
R-help@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
______________________________________________
R-help@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
