?order descending in means "order" assume always you Do > -----Original Message----- > From: Robin Hankin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 24 October 2003 10:18 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [R] x[c(1,2,1)] <- 1:3 > > > Security Warning: > If you are not sure an attachment is safe to open please contact > Andy on x234. There are 0 attachments with this message. > ________________________________________________________________ > > Hi everyone. > > look at this: > > x <- 1:4 > x[c(1,2,1)] <- (1:3) > print(x[1]) > > I get 3, but isn't NA more appropriate? [1 would be as sensible]. > FWIW, the equivalent Fortran 95 statement is flagged as an error. > R-intro, section 2.7, says that in such cases the assignment is > carried out "in order" which might support getting 3. > > To my way of thinking, the concept of "in order" seems to violate the > usual strategy of considering vectors as whole entities---because in > this case we have to specify whether the assignment starts at > c(1,2,1)[1] and proceeds to c(1,2,1)[3], or starts at c(1,2,1)[3] and > proceeds to c(1,2,1)[1]. And the results are different! > > > What is the R position on this? > > > rksh > > ______________________________________________ > [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list > https://www.stat.math.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help > Simon Fear Senior Statistician Syne qua non Ltd Tel: +44 (0) 1379 644449 Fax: +44 (0) 1379 644445 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://www.synequanon.com Number of attachments included with this message: 0 This message (and any associated files) is confidential and\...{{dropped}}
______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list https://www.stat.math.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help