2 messages · Greg Minshall, Gabriel Becker
Martin, et al.,
I think we should allow 'year' to be "double" instead, and so it could also be +Inf or -Inf and we'd nicely cover the conversions from and to 'numeric' -- which is really used internally for dates and date-times in POSIXct.
storing years as a double makes me worry slightly about ----
year <- 1e50 (year+1)-year
[1] 0 ---- which is not how one thinks of years (or integers) as behaving. cheers, Greg ps -- sorry for the ">" overloading!
Greg, I see what you mean, but on the other hand, that's not how we think about real numbers working either, and doubles have that behavior generally. It might be possible to put checks in (with a potentially non-trivial overhead cost) to disallow that kind of thing, but again R (and everyone else, I think?) doesn't do so for regular doubles. Also, I would expect the year 1e50 and the "year" Inf to be functionally equivalent in meaning (and largely meaningless) in context. Best, ~G
Martin, et al.,
I think we should allow 'year' to be "double" instead, and so it could also be +Inf or -Inf and we'd nicely cover the conversions from and to 'numeric' -- which is really used internally for dates and date-times in POSIXct.
storing years as a double makes me worry slightly about ----
year <- 1e50 (year+1)-year
[1] 0 ---- which is not how one thinks of years (or integers) as behaving. cheers, Greg ps -- sorry for the ">" overloading!
______________________________________________ R-devel at r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Gabriel Becker, Ph.D Scientist Bioinformatics and Computational Biology Genentech Research [[alternative HTML version deleted]]