Skip to content
Prev 75910 / 398502 Next

Summary: Unexpected result of read.dbf

It really isn't clear that this is correct.  The reason is correct: 
read.dbf treats numeric files with no decimals as integers, and that _is_ 
as stated on the help page.  So it is definitely not a `bug', and reading 
the help would have shown the reason for the original question.
[I in general do not reply to questions that can be answered from the help 
page.]

I believe this field has been incorrectly coded as numeric, as it seems to 
be a factor ('keycode').  In particular, 19 is not a valid field size for 
a numeric field.

If one wants to allow this, I think we have to use double for a field in 
which any value is not representable as an integer, and not just if the 
field size exceeds 9.  I have been working on implementing that.
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005, Susumu Tanimura wrote: