Re: [Rd] multiple issues with is.unsorted()
Dear Herve,
Hervé Pagès hpa...@fhcrc.org
on Tue, 23 Apr 2013 23:09:21 -0700 writes:
Hi, In the man page for is.unsorted():
Value:
A length-one logical value. All objects of length 0
or 1 are sorted: the result will be ‘NA’ for objects of
length 2 or more except for atomic vectors and objects
with a class (where the ‘=’ or ‘’ method is used to
compare ‘x[i]’ with ‘x[i-1]’ for ‘i’ in ‘2:length(x)’).
This contains many incorrect statements:
length(NA)
[1] 1
is.unsorted(NA)
[1] NA
length(list(NA))
[1] 1
is.unsorted(list(NA))
[1] NA
= Contradicts all objects of length 0 or 1 are sorted.
is.unsorted(raw(2))
Error in is.unsorted(raw(2)) : unimplemented type
'raw' in 'isUnsorted'
= Doesn't agree with the doc (unless except for atomic
vectors means it might fail for atomic vectors).
setClass(A, representation(aa=integer)) a - new(A,
aa=4:1) length(a)
[1] 1
is.unsorted(a)
[1] FALSE Warning message: In is.na(x) : is.na()
applied to non-(list or vector) of type 'S4'
= Ok, but it's arguable the warning is useful/justified
from a user point of view. The warning *seems* to suggest
that defining an is.na method for my objects is required
for is.unsorted() to work properly but the doc doesn't
make this clear.
Anyway, let's define one, so the warning goes away:
setMethod(is.na, A, function(x) is.na(x@aa))
[1] is.na
Let's define a length method:
setMethod(length, A, function(x) length(x@aa))
[1] length
length(a)
[1] 4
is.unsorted(a)
[1] FALSE
= Is this correct? Hard to know. The doc is not clear
about what should happen for objects of length 2 or more
and with a class but with no = or methods.
Let's define [, =, and :
setMethod([, A, function(x, i, j, ..., drop=TRUE)
new(A,
aa=x@aa[i])) [1] [
rev(a)
An object of class A Slot aa: [1] 1 2 3 4
setMethod(=, c(A, A), function(e1, e2) {e1@aa =
e2@aa})
[1] =
a = a[3]
[1] TRUE TRUE TRUE FALSE
setMethod(, c(A, A), function(e1, e2) {e1@aa
e2@aa})
[1]
a a[3]
[1] TRUE TRUE FALSE FALSE
is.unsorted(a)
[1] FALSE
is.unsorted(rev(a))
[1] FALSE
Still not working as expected. So what's required exactly
for making is.unsorted() work on an object with a class?
well, read the source code. :-) ;-)
More seriously: On another hidden help page, you find
\code{.gt} and \code{.gtn} are callbacks from \code{\link{rank}} and
\code{\link{is.unsorted}} used for classed objects.
In other words, you'd need do define a method for
.gtn for S4 objects in this case.
yes, indeed I don't know why this is not at all documented.
BTW, is.unsorted() would be *much* faster, at least on
atomic vectors, without those calls to is.na().
Well, in all R versions, apart from R-devel as of yesterday,
the source of is.unsorted() has been
is.unsorted - function(x, na.rm = FALSE, strictly = FALSE)
{
if(is.null(x)) return(FALSE)
if(!na.rm any(is.na(x)))## FIXME is.na(large) is too slow
return(NA)
## else
if(na.rm any(ii - is.na(x)))
x - x[!ii]
.Internal(is.unsorted(x, strictly))
}
so you see the FIXME.
In R-devel (and probably R-patched in the nearer future),
that line is
if(!na.rm anyMissing(x))
so there's no slow code anymore, at least not for the default
case of na.rm = FALSE.
The C code
could check for NAs, without having to do this as a first
pass on the full vector like it is the case with the
current implementation. If the vector if unsorted, the C
code is typically able to bail out early so the speed-up
will typically be 1x or more if the vector as millions
of elements.
you are right (but again: the most important case na.rm=FALSE
case has been solved already I'd say),
but you know well that we do gratefully accept good patches to
the R sources.
Thanks, H.
sessionInfo()
R version 3.0.0 (2013-04-03) Platform:
x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu (64-bit)
locale: [1] LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 LC_NUMERIC=C [3]
LC_TIME=en_US.UTF-8 LC_COLLATE=en_US.UTF-8 [5]
LC_MONETARY=en_US.UTF-8 LC_MESSAGES=en_US.UTF-8 [7]
LC_PAPER=C LC_NAME=C [9] LC_ADDRESS=C LC_TELEPHONE=C [11]
LC_MEASUREMENT=en_US.UTF-8 LC_IDENTIFICATION=C
attached base packages: [1] stats graphics grDevices utils
datasets methods base
loaded via a namespace (and not attached): [1] tools_3.0.0
--
Hervé Pagès
Program in Computational Biology Division of Public Health
Sciences Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center 1100
Fairview Ave. N, M1-B514 P.O. Box 19024
Re: [Rd] multiple issues with is.unsorted()
More comments .. see inline
Martin Maechler maech...@stat.math.ethz.ch
on Wed, 24 Apr 2013 11:29:39 +0200 writes:
Dear Herve,
Hervé Pagès hpa...@fhcrc.org
on Tue, 23 Apr 2013 23:09:21 -0700 writes:
Hi, In the man page for is.unsorted():
Value:
A length-one logical value. All objects of length 0 or 1
are sorted: the result will be ‘NA’ for objects of length
2 or more except for atomic vectors and objects with a
class (where the ‘=’ or ‘’ method is used to compare
‘x[i]’ with ‘x[i-1]’ for ‘i’ in ‘2:length(x)’).
This contains many incorrect statements:
length(NA)
[1] 1
is.unsorted(NA)
[1] NA
length(list(NA))
[1] 1
is.unsorted(list(NA))
[1] NA
= Contradicts all objects of length 0 or 1 are sorted.
Ok. I really think we should change the above.
If NA is for a missing number, it still cannot be unsorted if it
is of length one.
-- the above will give FALSE real soon now.
is.unsorted(raw(2))
Error in is.unsorted(raw(2)) : unimplemented type 'raw'
in 'isUnsorted'
= Doesn't agree with the doc (unless except for atomic
vectors means it might fail for atomic vectors).
Well, the doc says about 'x'
| \item{x}{an \R object with a class or a numeric, complex, character or
|logical vector.}
so strictly, is.unsorted() is not to be used on raw vectors.
However I think you have a point:
Raw vectors didn't exist when is.unsorted() was
invented, so where not considered back then.
Originally, raw vectors were really almost only there for
storage, i.e. basically read and write, but now we have
as '' , '=' '==' etc working well for raw() ,
we could allow is.unsorted() to work, too.
Note however, that if you try to sort(raw) you also always get
an error about sort() not being implemented for raw(),...
something we could arguably reconsider, as we admitted the
relational operators ( = == = != ) to work.
{{anyone donating patches to R-devel for sort()ing raw ?}}
setClass(A, representation(aa=integer))
new(A, aa=4:1)
length(a)
[1] 1
is.unsorted(a)
[1] FALSE
Warning message: In is.na(x) : is.na() applied
to non-(list or vector) of type 'S4'
= Ok, but it's arguable the warning is useful/justified
from a user point of view. The warning *seems* to suggest
that defining an is.na method for my objects is
required for is.unsorted() to work properly but the doc
doesn't make this clear.
you are right.
We are going to improve on this, at least the documentation.
[.]
The S4 part I've already started addressing in the last reply.
(and we may get back to that.. )
[.]
Martin
__
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Re: [Rd] multiple issues with is.unsorted()
Hi Martin,
On 04/24/2013 02:29 AM, Martin Maechler wrote:
Dear Herve,
Hervé Pagès hpa...@fhcrc.org
on Tue, 23 Apr 2013 23:09:21 -0700 writes:
Hi, In the man page for is.unsorted():
Value:
A length-one logical value. All objects of length 0
or 1 are sorted: the result will be ‘NA’ for objects of
length 2 or more except for atomic vectors and objects
with a class (where the ‘=’ or ‘’ method is used to
compare ‘x[i]’ with ‘x[i-1]’ for ‘i’ in ‘2:length(x)’).
This contains many incorrect statements:
length(NA)
[1] 1
is.unsorted(NA)
[1] NA
length(list(NA))
[1] 1
is.unsorted(list(NA))
[1] NA
= Contradicts all objects of length 0 or 1 are sorted.
is.unsorted(raw(2))
Error in is.unsorted(raw(2)) : unimplemented type
'raw' in 'isUnsorted'
= Doesn't agree with the doc (unless except for atomic
vectors means it might fail for atomic vectors).
setClass(A, representation(aa=integer)) a - new(A,
aa=4:1) length(a)
[1] 1
is.unsorted(a)
[1] FALSE Warning message: In is.na(x) : is.na()
applied to non-(list or vector) of type 'S4'
= Ok, but it's arguable the warning is useful/justified
from a user point of view. The warning *seems* to suggest
that defining an is.na method for my objects is required
for is.unsorted() to work properly but the doc doesn't
make this clear.
Anyway, let's define one, so the warning goes away:
setMethod(is.na, A, function(x) is.na(x@aa))
[1] is.na
Let's define a length method:
setMethod(length, A, function(x) length(x@aa))
[1] length
length(a)
[1] 4
is.unsorted(a)
[1] FALSE
= Is this correct? Hard to know. The doc is not clear
about what should happen for objects of length 2 or more
and with a class but with no = or methods.
Let's define [, =, and :
setMethod([, A, function(x, i, j, ..., drop=TRUE)
new(A,
aa=x@aa[i])) [1] [
rev(a)
An object of class A Slot aa: [1] 1 2 3 4
setMethod(=, c(A, A), function(e1, e2) {e1@aa =
e2@aa})
[1] =
a = a[3]
[1] TRUE TRUE TRUE FALSE
setMethod(, c(A, A), function(e1, e2) {e1@aa
e2@aa})
[1]
a a[3]
[1] TRUE TRUE FALSE FALSE
is.unsorted(a)
[1] FALSE
is.unsorted(rev(a))
[1] FALSE
Still not working as expected. So what's required exactly
for making is.unsorted() work on an object with a class?
well, read the source code. :-) ;-)
More seriously: On another hidden help page, you find
\code{.gt} and \code{.gtn} are callbacks from \code{\link{rank}} and
\code{\link{is.unsorted}} used for classed objects.
In other words, you'd need do define a method for
.gtn for S4 objects in this case.
Ah, good to know.
yes, indeed I don't know why this is not at all documented.
BTW, is.unsorted() would be *much* faster, at least on
atomic vectors, without those calls to is.na().
Well, in all R versions, apart from R-devel as of yesterday,
the source of is.unsorted() has been
is.unsorted - function(x, na.rm = FALSE, strictly = FALSE)
{
if(is.null(x)) return(FALSE)
if(!na.rm any(is.na(x)))## FIXME is.na(large) is too slow
return(NA)
## else
if(na.rm any(ii - is.na(x)))
x - x[!ii]
.Internal(is.unsorted(x, strictly))
}
so you see the FIXME.
In R-devel (and probably R-patched in the nearer future),
that line is
if(!na.rm anyMissing(x))
so there's no slow code anymore, at least not for the default
case of na.rm = FALSE.
The C code
could check for NAs, without having to do this as a first
pass on the full vector like it is the case with the
current implementation. If the vector if unsorted, the C
code is typically able to bail out early so the speed-up
will typically be 1x or more if the vector as millions
of elements.
you are right (but again: the most important case na.rm=FALSE
case has been solved already I'd say4),
but you know well that we do gratefully accept good patches to
the R sources.
Will do. Thanks!
H.
Thanks, H.
sessionInfo()
R version 3.0.0 (2013-04-03) Platform:
x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu (64-bit)
locale: [1] LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 LC_NUMERIC=C [3]
LC_TIME=en_US.UTF-8 LC_COLLATE=en_US.UTF-8 [5]
LC_MONETARY=en_US.UTF-8 LC_MESSAGES=en_US.UTF-8 [7]
LC_PAPER=C LC_NAME=C [9] LC_ADDRESS=C LC_TELEPHONE=C [11]
LC_MEASUREMENT=en_US.UTF-8 LC_IDENTIFICATION=C
attached base packages: [1] stats graphics grDevices utils
datasets methods base
loaded via a namespace (and not attached): [1]
Re: [Rd] multiple issues with is.unsorted()
is.unsorted(NA)
[1] NA
= Contradicts all objects of length 0 or 1 are sorted.
Ok. I really think we should change the above.
If NA is for a missing number, it still cannot be unsorted if it
is of length one.
-- the above will give FALSE real soon now.
It depends what you are using the result of is.unsorted() for. If you want
to know if you can save time by not calling x-sort(x) then is.unsorted(NA)
should not say that NA is sorted, as sort(NA) has length 0.
Bill Dunlap
Spotfire, TIBCO Software
wdunlap tibco.com
-Original Message-
From: r-devel-boun...@r-project.org [mailto:r-devel-boun...@r-project.org] On
Behalf
Of Martin Maechler
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 8:41 AM
To: Hervé Pagès; r-de...@stat.math.ethz.ch
Cc: Martin Maechler
Subject: Re: [Rd] multiple issues with is.unsorted()
More comments .. see inline
Martin Maechler maech...@stat.math.ethz.ch
on Wed, 24 Apr 2013 11:29:39 +0200 writes:
Dear Herve,
Hervé Pagès hpa...@fhcrc.org
on Tue, 23 Apr 2013 23:09:21 -0700 writes:
Hi, In the man page for is.unsorted():
Value:
A length-one logical value. All objects of length 0 or 1
are sorted: the result will be ‘NA’ for objects of length
2 or more except for atomic vectors and objects with a
class (where the ‘=’ or ‘’ method is used to compare
‘x[i]’ with ‘x[i-1]’ for ‘i’ in ‘2:length(x)’).
This contains many incorrect statements:
length(NA)
[1] 1
is.unsorted(NA)
[1] NA
length(list(NA))
[1] 1
is.unsorted(list(NA))
[1] NA
= Contradicts all objects of length 0 or 1 are sorted.
Ok. I really think we should change the above.
If NA is for a missing number, it still cannot be unsorted if it
is of length one.
-- the above will give FALSE real soon now.
is.unsorted(raw(2))
Error in is.unsorted(raw(2)) : unimplemented type 'raw'
in 'isUnsorted'
= Doesn't agree with the doc (unless except for atomic
vectors means it might fail for atomic vectors).
Well, the doc says about 'x'
| \item{x}{an \R object with a class or a numeric, complex, character or
|logical vector.}
so strictly, is.unsorted() is not to be used on raw vectors.
However I think you have a point:
Raw vectors didn't exist when is.unsorted() was
invented, so where not considered back then.
Originally, raw vectors were really almost only there for
storage, i.e. basically read and write, but now we have
as '' , '=' '==' etc working well for raw() ,
we could allow is.unsorted() to work, too.
Note however, that if you try to sort(raw) you also always get
an error about sort() not being implemented for raw(),...
something we could arguably reconsider, as we admitted the
relational operators ( = == = != ) to work.
{{anyone donating patches to R-devel for sort()ing raw ?}}
setClass(A, representation(aa=integer))
new(A, aa=4:1)
length(a)
[1] 1
is.unsorted(a)
[1] FALSE
Warning message: In is.na(x) : is.na() applied
to non-(list or vector) of type 'S4'
= Ok, but it's arguable the warning is useful/justified
from a user point of view. The warning *seems* to suggest
that defining an is.na method for my objects is
required for is.unsorted() to work properly but the doc
doesn't make this clear.
you are right.
We are going to improve on this, at least the documentation.
[.]
The S4 part I've already started addressing in the last reply.
(and we may get back to that.. )
[.]
Martin
__
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
__
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Re: [Rd] multiple issues with is.unsorted()
Hi,
On 04/24/2013 09:27 AM, William Dunlap wrote:
is.unsorted(NA)
[1] NA
= Contradicts all objects of length 0 or 1 are sorted.
Ok. I really think we should change the above.
If NA is for a missing number, it still cannot be unsorted if it
is of length one.
-- the above will give FALSE real soon now.
It depends what you are using the result of is.unsorted() for. If you want
to know if you can save time by not calling x-sort(x) then is.unsorted(NA)
should not say that NA is sorted, as sort(NA) has length 0.
Glad you mention this. This is related but actually a different issue
which is that by default is.unsorted() and sort() don't treat NAs
consistently: the former keeps them, the latter removes them. So if
you want to use is.unsorted() for deciding whether or not you're going
to call sort() (without specifying 'na.last'), you should do
'is.unsorted( , na.rm=TRUE)'.
This is why IMO 'is.unsorted( , na.rm=TRUE)' is an important use case
and should be as fast as possible.
If you want to keep NAs, you'll have to sort 'x' with either
na.last=TRUE or na.last=FALSE. So it makes a lot of sense that
is.unsorted(x) returns FALSE if x is a single NA, because, in that
case, 'x' doesn't need to be sorted.
Cheers,
H.
Bill Dunlap
Spotfire, TIBCO Software
wdunlap tibco.com
-Original Message-
From: r-devel-boun...@r-project.org [mailto:r-devel-boun...@r-project.org] On
Behalf
Of Martin Maechler
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 8:41 AM
To: Hervé Pagès; r-de...@stat.math.ethz.ch
Cc: Martin Maechler
Subject: Re: [Rd] multiple issues with is.unsorted()
More comments .. see inline
Martin Maechler maech...@stat.math.ethz.ch
on Wed, 24 Apr 2013 11:29:39 +0200 writes:
Dear Herve,
Hervé Pagès hpa...@fhcrc.org
on Tue, 23 Apr 2013 23:09:21 -0700 writes:
Hi, In the man page for is.unsorted():
Value:
A length-one logical value. All objects of length 0 or 1
are sorted: the result will be ‘NA’ for objects of length
2 or more except for atomic vectors and objects with a
class (where the ‘=’ or ‘’ method is used to compare
‘x[i]’ with ‘x[i-1]’ for ‘i’ in ‘2:length(x)’).
This contains many incorrect statements:
length(NA)
[1] 1
is.unsorted(NA)
[1] NA
length(list(NA))
[1] 1
is.unsorted(list(NA))
[1] NA
= Contradicts all objects of length 0 or 1 are sorted.
Ok. I really think we should change the above.
If NA is for a missing number, it still cannot be unsorted if it
is of length one.
-- the above will give FALSE real soon now.
is.unsorted(raw(2))
Error in is.unsorted(raw(2)) : unimplemented type 'raw'
in 'isUnsorted'
= Doesn't agree with the doc (unless except for atomic
vectors means it might fail for atomic vectors).
Well, the doc says about 'x'
| \item{x}{an \R object with a class or a numeric, complex, character or
|logical vector.}
so strictly, is.unsorted() is not to be used on raw vectors.
However I think you have a point:
Raw vectors didn't exist when is.unsorted() was
invented, so where not considered back then.
Originally, raw vectors were really almost only there for
storage, i.e. basically read and write, but now we have
as '' , '=' '==' etc working well for raw() ,
we could allow is.unsorted() to work, too.
Note however, that if you try to sort(raw) you also always get
an error about sort() not being implemented for raw(),...
something we could arguably reconsider, as we admitted the
relational operators ( = == = != ) to work.
{{anyone donating patches to R-devel for sort()ing raw ?}}
setClass(A, representation(aa=integer))
new(A, aa=4:1)
length(a)
[1] 1
is.unsorted(a)
[1] FALSE
Warning message: In is.na(x) : is.na() applied
to non-(list or vector) of type 'S4'
= Ok, but it's arguable the warning is useful/justified
from a user point of view. The warning *seems* to suggest
that defining an is.na method for my objects is
required for is.unsorted() to work properly but the doc
doesn't make this clear.
you are right.
We are going to improve on this, at least the documentation.
[.]
The S4 part I've already started addressing in the last reply.
(and we may get back to that.. )
[.]
Martin
__
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
--
Hervé Pagès
Program in Computational Biology
Division of Public Health Sciences
Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center
1100 Fairview Ave. N, M1-B514
P.O. Box 19024
Seattle, WA 98109-1024
E-mail: hpa...@fhcrc.org
Phone: (206) 667-5791
Fax:(206) 667-1319
__
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Re: [Rd] multiple issues with is.unsorted()
On 04/24/2013 12:00 PM, Hervé Pagès wrote:
Hi,
On 04/24/2013 09:27 AM, William Dunlap wrote:
is.unsorted(NA)
[1] NA
= Contradicts all objects of length 0 or 1 are sorted.
Ok. I really think we should change the above.
If NA is for a missing number, it still cannot be unsorted if it
is of length one.
-- the above will give FALSE real soon now.
It depends what you are using the result of is.unsorted() for. If you
want
to know if you can save time by not calling x-sort(x) then
is.unsorted(NA)
should not say that NA is sorted, as sort(NA) has length 0.
Glad you mention this. This is related but actually a different issue
which is that by default is.unsorted() and sort() don't treat NAs
consistently: the former keeps them, the latter removes them. So if
you want to use is.unsorted() for deciding whether or not you're going
to call sort() (without specifying 'na.last'), you should do
'is.unsorted( , na.rm=TRUE)'.
This is why IMO 'is.unsorted( , na.rm=TRUE)' is an important use case
and should be as fast as possible.
If you want to keep NAs, you'll have to sort 'x' with either
na.last=TRUE or na.last=FALSE. So it makes a lot of sense that
is.unsorted(x) returns FALSE if x is a single NA, because, in that
case, 'x' doesn't need to be sorted.
And I should add that, for that use case (want to keep NAs when
sorting), is.unsorted() is totally useless anyway because it will
return NA if 'x' has length = 2 and contains NAs :-/
Cheers,
H.
Cheers,
H.
Bill Dunlap
Spotfire, TIBCO Software
wdunlap tibco.com
-Original Message-
From: r-devel-boun...@r-project.org
[mailto:r-devel-boun...@r-project.org] On Behalf
Of Martin Maechler
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 8:41 AM
To: Hervé Pagès; r-de...@stat.math.ethz.ch
Cc: Martin Maechler
Subject: Re: [Rd] multiple issues with is.unsorted()
More comments .. see inline
Martin Maechler maech...@stat.math.ethz.ch
on Wed, 24 Apr 2013 11:29:39 +0200 writes:
Dear Herve,
Hervé Pagès hpa...@fhcrc.org
on Tue, 23 Apr 2013 23:09:21 -0700 writes:
Hi, In the man page for is.unsorted():
Value:
A length-one logical value. All objects of length 0 or 1
are sorted: the result will be ‘NA’ for objects of length
2 or more except for atomic vectors and objects with a
class (where the ‘=’ or ‘’ method is used to compare
‘x[i]’ with ‘x[i-1]’ for ‘i’ in ‘2:length(x)’).
This contains many incorrect statements:
length(NA)
[1] 1
is.unsorted(NA)
[1] NA
length(list(NA))
[1] 1
is.unsorted(list(NA))
[1] NA
= Contradicts all objects of length 0 or 1 are sorted.
Ok. I really think we should change the above.
If NA is for a missing number, it still cannot be unsorted if it
is of length one.
-- the above will give FALSE real soon now.
is.unsorted(raw(2))
Error in is.unsorted(raw(2)) : unimplemented type 'raw'
in 'isUnsorted'
= Doesn't agree with the doc (unless except for atomic
vectors means it might fail for atomic vectors).
Well, the doc says about 'x'
| \item{x}{an \R object with a class or a numeric, complex,
character or
|logical vector.}
so strictly, is.unsorted() is not to be used on raw vectors.
However I think you have a point:
Raw vectors didn't exist when is.unsorted() was
invented, so where not considered back then.
Originally, raw vectors were really almost only there for
storage, i.e. basically read and write, but now we have
as '' , '=' '==' etc working well for raw() ,
we could allow is.unsorted() to work, too.
Note however, that if you try to sort(raw) you also always get
an error about sort() not being implemented for raw(),...
something we could arguably reconsider, as we admitted the
relational operators ( = == = != ) to work.
{{anyone donating patches to R-devel for sort()ing raw ?}}
setClass(A, representation(aa=integer))
new(A, aa=4:1)
length(a)
[1] 1
is.unsorted(a)
[1] FALSE
Warning message: In is.na(x) : is.na() applied
to non-(list or vector) of type 'S4'
= Ok, but it's arguable the warning is useful/justified
from a user point of view. The warning *seems* to suggest
that defining an is.na method for my objects is
required for is.unsorted() to work properly but the doc
doesn't make this clear.
you are right.
We are going to improve on this, at least the documentation.
[.]
The S4 part I've already started addressing in the last reply.
(and we may get back to that.. )
[.]
Martin
__
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
--
Hervé Pagès
Program in Computational Biology
Division of Public Health Sciences
Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center
1100 Fairview Ave. N, M1-B514
P.O. Box 19024
Seattle, WA 98109-1024
E-mail: hpa...@fhcrc.org
Phone: (206) 667-5791
