,
Ariel
From: Duncan Murdoch
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 8:09 PM
To: Paulson, Ariel; Jeff Newmiller; Bert Gunter
Cc: r-help@r-project.org
Subject: Re: [R] [FORGED] Re: identical() versus sapply()
On 11/04/2016 8:25 PM, Paulson, Ariel wrote:
> Hi J
​Perfect!
Thanks,
Ariel
From: William Dunlap
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 7:37 PM
To: Paulson, Ariel
Cc: Jeff Newmiller; Bert Gunter; r-help@r-project.org
Subject: Re: [R] [FORGED] Re: identical() versus sapply()
Use all.equal instead of identical if you want
on(i) identical(as(i,"numeric"),1) )
[1] FALSE FALSE
These are the results of R's hair-splitting!
Ariel
From: Jeff Newmiller
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 6:49 PM
To: Bert Gunter; Paulson, Ariel
Cc: Rolf Turner; r-help@r-project.org
Subject: Re:
sting should not affect final
class.
Thanks,
Ariel
-Original Message-
From: Rolf Turner [mailto:r.tur...@auckland.ac.nz]
Sent: Saturday, April 09, 2016 5:27 AM
To: Jeff Newmiller
Cc: Paulson, Ariel; 'r-help@r-project.org'
Subject: Re: [FORGED] Re: [R] identical() versus sapply()
On 09/
Sorry if this has been answered elsewhere, but I can't find any discussion of
it.
Wondering why the following situation occurs (duplicated on 3.2.2 CentOS6 and
3.0.1 Win2k, so I don't think it is a bug):
> sapply(1, identical, 1)
[1] TRUE
> sapply(1:2, identical, 1)
[1] FALSE FALSE
> sapply(1
5 matches
Mail list logo
