[R] better an error?
r.turner at auckland.ac.nz
Fri Apr 11 01:32:33 CEST 2014
The behaviour that you get is exactly the behaviour that I, at least,
would expect, and it seems to me to be exactly the correct behaviour.
I do not understand what you are complaining about.
On 11/04/14 06:31, ivo welch wrote:
> I just spent about an hour bug-tracking. I had expected the following to
> throw an error:
> d <- data.frame( x=1:5, y=6:10 )
> valid <- c(TRUE, FALSE)
> I understand that R recycles "when fit," but I had not expected it to
> recycle, then truncate, and not give even a warning. maybe there is a good
> reason for this.
> I would love to be able to teach R to my MFE students. alas, I don't feel
> that I can inflict on them the mysterious errors in R. this ranges from
> poor checking of when variables exist to auto-recycling (without an ability
> to turn this off even with an option) to the non-printing of the last
> numbered R source code statement upon an error (that I can see in the
> traceback()) to non-expected behavior (e.g., subset(d,x,select=-c("a",
> "b"))) to . I know many of these issues can be fixed and/or do not bother
> the experts, and I am personally happy to live with R for its power despite
> its drawbacks; but IMHO it is just too much to ask from a set of bewildered
> novice master students.
> I hope the R team will at some point in the future pick up on making the
> core language less mysterious upon setting an option, at least in "user
More information about the R-help