NA, where no NA should (could!) be!
Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
I think reproducible is the correct word and its meaning should be clear from both its conventional meaning, see link, and the context in which its used: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility It is surprising how many posters disregard this basic requirement for a post, clearly stated at the bottom of each message to r-help.
well, the foot
______________________________________________ R-help at r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
says 'reproducible code', but code is what you really want to get, not to reproduce ;) vQ