From m@ech|er @end|ng |rom @t@t@m@th@ethz@ch  Sun Nov 10 09:36:56 2019
From: m@ech|er @end|ng |rom @t@t@m@th@ethz@ch (Martin Maechler)
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2019 09:36:56 +0100
Subject: [Rd] class(<matrix>) |--> c("matrix",
 "arrary") [was "head.matrix ..."]
In-Reply-To: <CAD4oTHF1+PdJX-Qq=JZwafhGNatDu9AZVD0prCAvyJFL9bLzVg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPRVBcxsAkcgr3mDc4skTe8DTxJaYe2xyhk3QMk3odW1MGcyNA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAB8pepxS2mRtd+522OwjixnM6ZjYxb+X0dc4vMGn6QxdFYBmVQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAD4oTHH=LpeEj6h6xYdOGsreS-GDCGdgJV5wpaUR3Pjuh5_M1w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPRVBczYZHO3JaFVfNeNNV0-YMRvX3CUYhUvLCjophDEoP+XgQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <23935.14449.965488.684663@stat.math.ethz.ch>
 <CAPRVBcwMY=GAVfFeCwowQsxP31Y=_B2ducosThN+8V91WESB8Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <20449_1568703158_x8H6qIDG009669_f8285123-371f-5d4b-1281-6cc085dba122@fredhutch.org>
 <22204_1568723392_x8HCSG3F015456_674779E0-B1F6-4DC2-9F1C-D5D48B044B66@mcmaster.ca>
 <AD725242-0FB7-4004-9F16-304E345A363A@mcmaster.ca>
 <23937.1791.389379.103733@stat.math.ethz.ch>
 <CAD4oTHF_e4rtHu0S5bUu38+kQSEHXwun3Sv9-CbK+xN9tSc2hA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAD4oTHFf7Zp+Xe3jvv7oirLWgZm7ZiSNWZvbrEsqJGfrL6Q2wQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <23993.29737.690600.313456@stat.math.ethz.ch>
 <38105A28-07AE-48F6-A4A4-0C1FCCCBFBDC@gmail.com>
 <23995.62027.969336.196344@stat.math.ethz.ch>
 <CAD4oTHF1+PdJX-Qq=JZwafhGNatDu9AZVD0prCAvyJFL9bLzVg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <24007.52264.596794.767557@stat.math.ethz.ch>

>>>>> Gabriel Becker 
>>>>>     on Sat, 2 Nov 2019 12:37:08 -0700 writes:

    > I agree that we can be careful and narrow and still see a
    > nice improvement in behavior. While Herve's point is valid
    > and I understand his frustration, I think staying within
    > the matrix vs c(matrix, array) space is the right scope
    > for this work in terms of fiddling with inheritance.

 [.................]


> > Also, we seem to have a rule that inherits(x, c)  iff  c %in% class(x),
>
> good point, and that's why my usage of  inherits(.,.) was not
> quite to the point.  [OTOH, it was to the point, as indeed from
>       the ?class / ?inherits docu, S3 method dispatch and inherits
>       must be consistent ]
>
>     > which would break -- unless we change class(x) to return the whole
> set of inherited classes, which I sense that we'd rather not do....

  [................]

> Note again that both "matrix" and "array" are special [see ?class] as
> being of  __implicit class__  and I am considering that this
> implicit class behavior for these two should be slightly
> changed ....
>
> And indeed I think you are right on spot and this would mean
> that indeed the implicit class
> "matrix" should rather become c("matrix", "array").

I've made up my mind (and not been contradicted by my fellow R
corers) to try go there for  R 4.0.0   next April.

I've found the few places in base R that needed a change (to
pass 'make check-all' in the R sources) and found that indeed a
overzealous check in 'Matrix' needed also a change (a place
where the checking code assume  class(<matrix>) |--> "matrix" ).

There are certainly many more package (codes and checks) that
need adaption .. i.e., should be changed rather *before* the
above change is activated in R-devel (and then will affect all CRAN
and Bioconductor checks.)

To this end, I've published an  'R Blog' yesterday,

   http://bit.ly/R_blog_class_think_2x

which translates to

   https://developer.r-project.org/Blog/public/2019/11/09/when-you-think-class.-think-again/index.html

notably mentioning why using  class(x) == "...."  (or '!=')  or
switch(class(.) ...)  is quite unsafe and hence bad and you
should very often not replace  class(x)  by  class(x)[1]  but
really use the "only truly correct" ;-)

     inherits(x,  "...")
or
     is(x,  "....")   # if you're advanced/brave enough (:-) to
     	    	      # use formal classes (S4)
     
Martin Maechler
ETH Zurich and R Core Team



[Rd] class(<matrix>) |--> c("matrix", "arrary") [was "head.matrix ..."]
Martin Maechler