Please note that ?NaN says
"Computations involving ‘NaN’ will return ‘NaN’ or perhaps ‘NA’: which
of those two is not guaranteed and may depend on the R platform (since
compilers may re-order computations)."
It is not reliable to depend on the distinction between NA and (non-NA)
NaN. Part
"nana" is meant to express "NA, really NA".
Your suggestion sounds good.
On Thu 2 Jan, 2020, 3:38 AM Pages, Herve, wrote:
> Happy New Year everybody!
>
> The name (is.nana) doesn't make much sense to me. Can you explain it?
>
> One alternative would be to add an extra argument (e.g. 'strict')
Happy New Year everybody!
The name (is.nana) doesn't make much sense to me. Can you explain it?
One alternative would be to add an extra argument (e.g. 'strict') to
is.na(). FALSE by default, and ignored (with or w/o a warning) when the
type of 'x' is not "numeric".
H.
On 12/31/19 22:16,
