Historical NA question

On 03/05/2014 12:39 PM, Hadley Wickham wrote:

Can anyone tell me what the significance of 1954 is in R's NA?

Just ask R:

 > 2*(1-pnorm(1954))

[1] 0

 > 2*(1-pnorm(1954)) %in% NA

[1] 0

Not sure that would make the "joke" better, but you need parentheses 
around the product because it seems %in% has precedence over * (the
fact that you got a number instead of a logical gives you a hint):

   > (2*(1-pnorm(1954))) %in% NA
   [1] FALSE

BTW, that %in% has precedence over arithmetic operations is surprising,
error-prone, and doesn't cover any reasonable use case (who needs to
multiply the logical vector returned by %in% by some value?) but that's
another story:

   > 3 + 2 %in% 1:6
   [1] 4
   > 3 - 2 %in% 1:6
   [1] 2
   > 3 * 2 %in% 1:6
   [1] 3
   > 3 / 2 %in% 1:6
   [1] 3

Weird!

H.

 >

______________________________________________
R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel

Herv? Pag?s

Program in Computational Biology
Division of Public Health Sciences
Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center
1100 Fairview Ave. N, M1-B514
P.O. Box 19024
Seattle, WA 98109-1024

E-mail: hpages at fhcrc.org
Phone:  (206) 667-5791
Fax:    (206) 667-1319