On 09/10/11 10:39, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
On 11-10-08 5:32 PM, Rolf Turner wrote:
On 09/10/11 00:18, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
On 11-10-07 5:26 PM, Carl Witthoft wrote:
Just wondering here -- I tested and found to my delight that
% round(325.4,-2)
[1] 300
gave me exactly what I would have expected (and wanted). Since
it's not
explicitly mentioned in the documentation that negative 'digits' is
allowed, I just wanted to ask whether this behavior is intentional
or a
happy turn of events. I'm always paranoid that something not
explicitly
documented might disappear in future revisons.
It is intentional, and one of the regression tests confirms that it's
there, so it won't disappear by mistake, and would be very unlikely to
disappear intentionally.
Uh, wouldn't it be *nice* to mention this --- not completely obvious ---
capability
in the help file?
If we told you all of R's secrets, we'd have to kill you.
Fortune nomination?
cheers,
Rolf
______________________________________________
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.
