[R] 'all' inconsistent?

[Seth Falcon]

On 30 Jan 2006, ligges at statistik.uni-dortmund.de wrote:
> Current behaviour is consistent in so far that identical(all(x),
> !any(!x)) is TRUE and definition of any() is obvious.

That helps, thanks.  I'm not sure I've had enough coffee to continue,
but, for the set analogy I think we are saying:

logical(0) is the empty set {}.
Complement of {} is the universal set U.

Then !logical(0)  == !{} == U.  any(U) is TRUE, isn't it?  

I guess the real message is that you need to protect yourself by
testing for positive length first.

+ seth