[R] Is k equivalent to k:k ?

[Marc Schwartz]

On Mon, 2004-08-02 at 10:09, Marc Schwartz wrote:

<snip>

> Thus, in the case of:
> 
> identical(4, 4:4)
> 
> the first 4 is of type double, while the 4:4 is of type single. Thus the
> result is FALSE.

<snip>

Correction. The above sentence should read:

the first 4 is of type double, while the 4:4 is of type **INTEGER**.
Thus the result is FALSE.

Sorry about that.  Need more coffee....

Marc