inconsistent behavior of summary function
I have not read the manual, but I drew 10000 random normal vectors and 10000 random Poisson vectors of length 10000 and was unable to reproduce this behavior. Can you provide an example (self-contained code) that reproduces this problem? Thanks, Daniel
Jeanne M. Spicer wrote:
The summary function behaves inconsistently with data frame columns, e.g. summary(rock) #max of area 12212, correct summary(rock$area) #max of area 12210, incorrect max I know that summary(rock$area, digits=5) will correct the error (I DID read the manual). But my point is the inconsistency, because I get the correct answer without having to add the digits option in the first statement when referring to the full dataframe. This is one of the first functions that beginners use and if they have to RTM and tinker with options before they can get a consistent value for the max of an integer column, it is off-putting to say the least. At worst it confirms the skeptic's suspicion that open-source software is a bit flaky. Would it be out of line to report this to r-bugs -- at least to improve on the documentation? -jms r2.13.1 maclion [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
______________________________________________ R-help@ 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.
-- View this message in context: http://r.789695.n4.nabble.com/inconsistent-behavior-of-summary-function-tp3869906p3870106.html Sent from the R help mailing list archive at Nabble.com.