[Rd] Recycling in arithmetic operations involving zero-length vectors

[Deepayan Sarkar]

On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 7:28 PM Duncan Murdoch <murdoch.duncan using gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 16/01/2023 6:55 a.m., David Winsemius wrote:
> >
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> >> On Jan 16, 2023, at 6:11 PM, Duncan Murdoch <murdoch.duncan using gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 16/01/2023 5:23 a.m., Roland Fuß wrote:
> >>> Dear R-core,
> >>> The language definition is very clear:
> >>> "As from R 1.4.0, any arithmetic operation involving a zero-length
> >>> vector has a zero-length result."
> >>> Thus, `1 + numeric()` returns `numeric(0)`. However, I don't find this
> >>> very intuitive because usually the shorter vector is recycled to the
> >>> length of the longer vector. Would it be possible to throw at least a
> >>> warning for such cases? I don't expect them to be intended by most users.
> >>> Best regards,
> >>
> >> The previous paragraph says "If the length of the longer vector is not a multiple of the shorter one, a warning is given."  Since 1 is not a multiple of 0, that implies a warning should be given here.
> >>
> >> However, R 1.4.0 was released more than 20 years ago, so I would guess there are lots of packages intentionally using this.  For example, it's a way to propagate bad inputs through a long calculation that allows a single test at the end.
> >>
> >> And even unintentional uses are unlikely to lead to problematic results:  numeric(0) is usually a pretty clear signal that something is wrong.
> >>
> >> So I'd suggest a documentation change: "As from R 1.4.0, any arithmetic operation involving a zero-length vector has a zero-length result *without a warning*."
> >
> > I doubt that a documentation change will help very much. Roland is responding here with his and my surprise at the lack of a warning after witnessing my answer to an R newb Q where the impression at seeing ’numeric(0) was understood as the value 0. I suggested that many interpretations were possible and that a warning was given for NA generation. I stand with Roland in thinking a warning is appropriate.
>
> I didn't see this exchange, but I don't understand "a warning was given
> for NA generation".  We don't get a warning for 1 + NA.  Do you mean
> you'd like to get one?
>
> In any case, I think your anecdote illustrates a different problem:
> printing numeric() as numeric(0) confused a beginning user.  I've also
> seen people get confused by that.
>
> Perhaps the change should be to the way numeric(0) is printed, but  that
> would also have consequences, since some people test the way output is
> printed.
>
> Or perhaps we should just recognize that it's in the nature of being a
> beginning user to be confused sometimes, and just help them to grow out
> of that stage.
>
> Before a change like one of these is made, someone should make it in a
> local copy, then run R CMD check on every package on CRAN to see how
> disruptive it is.  Maybe adding a warning() will uncover so few
> intentional uses that fixing them is worthwhile.

To even do that, we would have to first decide which "cases" should
produce a warning.

Let's say `1 + x` should give a warning when x = numeric(0). Then
should `x^2` also produce a warning? Should `x^0.5`? Should `sqrt(x)`?
Should `log(x)`?

-Deepayan

> The trouble is, running checks across CRAN is a very resource-intensive
> exercise, and analyzing the results is a very developer-intensive
> exercise.  I'm sure the doc change is easier.
>
> Duncan Murdoch
>
> ______________________________________________
> R-devel using r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel