# [Rd] R/S indexing difference

**Peter Dalgaard BSA
**
p.dalgaard@biostat.ku.dk

*Thu Feb 6 11:11:03 2003*

ripley@stats.ox.ac.uk writes:
>* Is this intentional?
*>*
*>* R:
*>* > x <- 1:7
*>* > x[c(1, NA, 3)] <- -(4:6)
*>* > x
*>* [1] -4 2 -6 4 5 6 7
*>*
*>* so NAs are treated as FALSE
*>*
*>* S+6.1:
*>* > x <- 1:7
*>* > x[c(1, NA, 3)] <- -(4:6)
*>* Warning messages:
*>* Replacement length not a multiple of number of elements to
*>* replace in: x[c(1, NA, 3)] <- - (4:6)
*>* > x
*>* [1] -4 2 -5 4 5 6 7
*>*
*>* and NAs are ignored.
*
Hmm. Neither of the options look too safe to me...
A 3rd bit of logic would say that you should get a vector of
7 NAs since you're asking to put the -5 into an unknown location...
--
O__ ---- Peter Dalgaard Blegdamsvej 3
c/ /'_ --- Dept. of Biostatistics 2200 Cph. N
(*) \(*) -- University of Copenhagen Denmark Ph: (+45) 35327918
~~~~~~~~~~ - (p.dalgaard@biostat.ku.dk) FAX: (+45) 35327907