[Rd] RFC: Redefining length(<POSIXlt>) ?
gregor.gorjanc at bfro.uni-lj.si
Mon Jul 24 14:48:14 CEST 2006
Martin Maechler <maechler <at> stat.math.ethz.ch> writes:
> So I did open a new subject and move the discussion to R-devel
> >>>>> "MM" == Martin Maechler <maechler <at> stat.math.ethz.ch>
> >>>>> on Mon, 24 Jul 2006 11:46:05 +0200 writes:
> >>>>> "Gabor" == Gabor Grothendieck <ggrothendieck <at> gmail.com>
> >>>>> on Sun, 23 Jul 2006 09:02:35 -0400 writes:
> Gabor> Looking at the diff.POSIXt code we see the problem is
> Gabor> that it takes the length of the input using length
> Gabor> which is wrong since in the case of POSIXlt the
> Gabor> length is always 9 (or maybe length should be defined
> Gabor> differently for POSIXlt?).
> MM> Though I agree with Spencer that a user may expect
> MM> length() to behave differently, but I don't think this
> MM> would be a good idea. Yes, length() is generic, but its
> MM> help() emphasizes that for lists, length() should be the
> MM> number of list elements. Of course anyone one *can*
> MM> define length() methods that behave differently for
> MM> his/her classes, but then one would also want to make
> MM> sure that e.g. x[length(x)] or 'x[length(x)] <- value'
> MM> works and -- in a case of simple S3 class built on a
> MM> list, would work differently than if x was a the simple list.
I think that having generic for POSIXlt would be more natural than default
length, which is (as stated by Gabor) always 9. When I see a date or time with
all additions I always think of it as one "element". So it would be naturaly
that length() would return number of dates/times in POSIXlt object.
More information about the R-devel