[Rd] nrow(rbind(character(), character())) returns 2 (as documented but very unintuitive, IMHO)

[Hadley Wickham]

The existing behaviour seems inutitive to me. I would consider these
invariants for n vector x_i's each with size m:

* nrow(rbind(x_1, x_2, ..., x_n)) equals n
* ncol(rbind(x_1, x_2, ..., x_n)) equals m

Additionally, wouldn't you expect rbind(x_1[i], x_2[i]) to equal
rbind(x_1, x_2)[, i, drop = FALSE] ?

Hadley

On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 3:26 PM Gabriel Becker <gabembecker using gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Apologies if this has been asked before (a quick google didn't  find it for
> me),and I know this is a case of behaving as documented but its so
> unintuitive (to me at least) that I figured I'd bring it up here anyway. I
> figure its probably going to not be changed,  but I'm happy to submit a
> patch if this is something R-core feels can/should change.
>
> So I recently got bitten by the fact that
>
> > nrow(rbind(character(), character()))
>
> [1] 2
>
>
> I was checking whether the result of an rbind call had more than one row,
> and that unexpected returned true, causing all sorts of shenanigans
> downstream as I'm sure you can imagine.
>
> Now I know that from ?rbind
>
> For ‘cbind’ (‘rbind’), vectors of zero length (including ‘NULL’)
> >
> >      are ignored unless the result would have zero rows (columns), for
> >
> >      S compatibility.  (Zero-extent matrices do not occur in S3 and are
> >
> >      not ignored in R.)
> >
>
> But there's a couple of things here. First, for the rowbind  case this
> reads as "if there would be zero columns,  the vectors will not be
> ignored". This wording implies to me that not ignoring the vectors is a
> remedy to the "problem" of the potential for a zero-column return, but
> thats not the case.  The result still has 0 columns, it just does not also
> have zero rows. So even if the behavior is not changed, perhaps this
> wording can be massaged for clarity?
>
> The other issue, which I admit is likely a problem with my intuition, but
> which I don't think I'm alone in having, is that even if I can't have a 0x0
> matrix (which is what I'd prefer) I would have expected/preferred a 1x0
> matrix, the reasoning being that if we must avoid a 0x0 return value, we
> would do the  minimum required to avoid, which is to not ignore the first
> length 0 vector, to ensure a non-zero-extent matrix, but then ignore the
> remaining ones as they contain information for 0 new rows.
>
> Of course I can program around this now that I know the behavior, but
> again, its so unintuitive (even for someone with a fairly well developed
> intuition for R's sometimes "quirky" behavior) that I figured I'd bring it
> up.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Best,
> ~G
>
>         [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
>
> ______________________________________________
> R-devel using r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel



-- 
http://hadley.nz