Skip to content

error on uneven recycling?

5 messages · Thomas Lumley, William Dunlap, Brian Ripley +1 more

#
Is there some reason why
[1] 2 4 4
Warning message:
In (1:2) + (1:3) :
  longer object length is not a multiple of shorter object length

can't be made into an error?  I realise it was there in S-PLUS, but
since it produces a warning there can't be many examples on CRAN or
Bioconductor using it, and I can't think of any situation where it
would be used deliberately.

    -thomas
#
That is an error in Splus 8.3.  It must have changed quite a while
ago - it was an error in Splus 5.1, released in 1999 and I don't have
an older version handy right now.  Current behavior is
[1]  1  3  3  5  5  7  7  9  9 11
Problem in 1:10 + 0:2: length of longer operand (10) should be a multiple of length of shorter (3)
Use traceback() to see the call stack

I vaguley recall running into some problems when we made the change,
but I think it was only in our internal test suite, using a trick like the above
to produce a patterned sequence.

Bill Dunlap
Spotfire, TIBCO Software
wdunlap tibco.com
#
On 25/09/2012 03:45, Thomas Lumley wrote:
It produces a warning, not an R CMD check warning.  There are lots of 
instances on CRAN, for example when running the examples for

CollocInfer DiceOptim FitAR LaplacesDemon MethComp OUwie ROptEst
RandVar RiDMC SweaveListingUtils TeachingSampling adlift
arulesViz caret cyclones depth disp2D gstat hyperSpec igraph
igraph0 iid influence irtoys isotone ldDesign libamtrack lqmm
mixtools phylobase polynom replicationDemos reporttools robustX
rsem sfsmisc spam spatstat survival tcltk2 tsDyn

let alone tests and vignettes.
#
On 25/09/2012 08:12, Prof Brian Ripley wrote:
I caught some some similar ones in that search:

CollocInfer DiceOptim RandVar TeachingSampling hyperSpec igraph igraph0 
influence lqmm mixtool phylobase polynom robustX sfsmisc spam survival 
tcltk2 tsDyn

are exactly that warning.  I think for example the one in 'survival' is 
an error.
#
On Sep 25, 2012, at 04:45 , Thomas Lumley wrote:

            
I always thought it was retained in case you needed to add something with cyclic behavior to a time series not necessarily containing an even number of cycles. If it has been outlawed in S-PLUS for a decade, that's probably not a big need...

-p