min(numeric(0)) = ? -- proposal for "S incompatible change"

[Martin Maechler]

[Same question for  max(.),  cummin(.) and cummax(.)]

In S, S-plus and R, this currently gives NA.

I wonder if it wouldn't make more sense to follow common
mathematical/logical reasoning here:

	min { empty set } = +Inf

	max { empty set } = -Inf

(For integers, these would be  INT_MAX and INT_MIN, respectively).

Maybe this is a real ``first time'':

	I am proposing a change which would lead from
	"S compatible" to  "S incompatible"

	{since I don't expect S to change, 
	 given my recent experience with my plea to change 'n %% m' 
	 (for negative n or m, the result DIFFERS, depending on
	  storage.mode = "integer" or "double" !!!)

	Note that I've spent quite a bit more thought on the "%%" issue 
	than on this one!


Comments?
Pros/ Cons?

Martin Maechler <maechler@stat.math.ethz.ch>			<><
Seminar fuer Statistik, ETH-Zentrum SOL G1;	Sonneggstr.33
ETH (Federal Inst. Technology)	8092 Zurich	SWITZERLAND
phone: x-41-1-632-3408		fax: ...-1086
http://www.stat.math.ethz.ch/~maechler/
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
r-devel mailing list -- Read http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.html
Send "info", "help", or "[un]subscribe"
(in the "body", not the subject !)  To: r-devel-request@stat.math.ethz.ch
_._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._