From suharto_anggono at yahoo.com  Sun Aug 14 05:42:08 2016
From: suharto_anggono at yahoo.com (Suharto Anggono Suharto Anggono)
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2016 03:42:08 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [Rd] table(exclude = NULL) always includes NA
References: <540967018.14196661.1471146128783.JavaMail.yahoo.ref@mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <540967018.14196661.1471146128783.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>

useNA <- if (missing(useNA) && !missing(exclude) && !(NA %in% exclude)) "ifany"

An example where it change 'table' result for non-factor input, from https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-help/2005-April/069053.html :
x <- c(1,2,3,3,NA)
table(as.integer(x), exclude=NaN)

I bring the example up, in case that the change in result is not intended.
--------------------------------------------
On Sat, 13/8/16, Martin Maechler <maechler at stat.math.ethz.ch> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Rd] table(exclude = NULL) always includes NA
 To: "Martin Maechler" <maechler at stat.math.ethz.ch>

@r-project.org
 Date: Saturday, 13 August, 2016, 4:29 AM

>>>>> Martin Maechler <maechler at stat.math.ethz.ch>
>>>>>     on Fri, 12 Aug 2016 10:12:01 +0200 writes:

>>>>> Suharto Anggono Suharto Anggono via R-devel <r-devel at r-project.org>
>>>>>     on Thu, 11 Aug 2016 16:19:49 +0000 writes:

    >> I stand corrected. The part "If set to 'NULL', it implies
    >> 'useNA="always"'." is even in the documentation in R
    >> 2.8.0. It was my fault not to check carefully.  I wonder,
    >> why "always" was chosen for 'useNA' for exclude = NULL.

    > me too.  "ifany" would seem more logical, and I am
    > considering changing to that as a 2nd step (if the 1st
    > step, below) shows to be feasible.

    >> Why exclude = NULL is so special? What about another
    >> 'exclude' of length zero, like character(0) (not c(),
    >> because c() is NULL)? I thought that, too. But then, I
    >> have no opinion about making it general.

    > As mentioned, I entirely agree with that {and you are
    > right about c() !!}.

    >> It fits my expectation to override 'useNA' only if the
    >> user doesn't explicitly specify 'useNA'.

    >> Thank you for looking into this.

    > you are welcome.  As first step, I plan to commit the
    > change to (*)

    >  useNA <- if (missing(useNA) && !missing(exclude) && !(NA
    > %in% exclude)) "always"

    > as proposed yesterday, and I'll eventually see / be
    > notified about the effect in CRAN space.

and as I'm finding now,  20 minutes too late,   doing step 1
without doing step 2  is not feasible.
It gives many  0 counts for <NA>  e.g. for  exclude = "foo".



    > --
    > (*) slightly more efficiently, I'll be using match()
    > directly instead of %in%

    >> My points: Could R 2.7.2 behavior of table(<non-factor>,
    >> exclude = NULL) be brought back? But R 3.3.1 behavior is
    >> in R since version 2.8.0, rather long.

    > you are right... but then, the places / cases where the
    > behavior would change back should be quite rare.

    >> If not, I suggest changing summary(<logical>).
    >> --------------------------------------------

    > Thank you for your feedback, Suharto!  Martin

    >> On Thu, 11/8/16, Martin Maechler
    >> <maechler at stat.math.ethz.ch> wrote:
    >> 
    >> Subject: Re: [Rd] table(exclude = NULL) always includes
    >> NA
    >> 
    >> @r-project.org Cc: "Martin Maechler"
    >> <maechler at stat.math.ethz.ch> Date: Thursday, 11 August,
    >> 2016, 12:39 AM
    >> 
    >> >>>>> Martin Maechler <maechler at stat.math.ethz.ch> >>>>>
    >> on Tue, 9 Aug 2016 15:35:41 +0200 writes:
    >> 
    >> >>>>> Suharto Anggono Suharto Anggono via R-devel
    >> <r-devel at r-project.org> >>>>> on Sun, 7 Aug 2016 15:32:19
    >> +0000 writes:
    >> 
    >> > > This is an example from
    >> https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-help/2007-May/132573.html
    >> .
    >> > 
    >> > > With R 2.7.2:
    >> > 
    >> > > > a <- c(1, 1, 2, 2, NA, 3); b <- c(2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1)
    >> > > > table(a, b, exclude = NULL) > > b > > a 1 2 > > 1 1
    >> 1 > > 2 2 0 > > 3 1 0 > > <NA> 1 0
    >> > 
    >> > > With R 3.3.1:
    >> > 
    >> > > > a <- c(1, 1, 2, 2, NA, 3); b <- c(2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1)
    >> > > > table(a, b, exclude = NULL) > > b > > a 1 2 <NA> >
    >> > 1 1 1 0 > > 2 2 0 0 > > 3 1 0 0 > > <NA> 1 0 0 > > >
    >> table(a, b, useNA = "ifany") > > b > > a 1 2 > > 1 1 1 >
    >> > 2 2 0 > > 3 1 0 > > <NA> 1 0 > > > table(a, b, exclude
    >> = NULL, useNA = "ifany") > > b > > a 1 2 <NA> > > 1 1 1 0
    >> > > 2 2 0 0 > > 3 1 0 0 > > <NA> 1 0 0
    >> > 
    >> > > For the example, in R 3.3.1, the result of 'table'
    >> with > > exclude = NULL includes NA even if NA is not
    >> present. It is > > different from R 2.7.2, that comes
    >> from factor(exclude = NULL), > > that includes NA only if
    >> NA is present.
    >> > 
    >> > I agree that this (R 3.3.1 behavior) seems undesirable
    >> and looks > wrong, and the old (<= 2.2.7) behavior for
    >> table(a,b, > exclude=NULL) seems desirable to me.
    >> > 
    >> > 
    >> > > >From R 3.3.1 help on 'table', in "Details" section:
    >> > > 'useNA' controls if the table includes counts of 'NA'
    >> values: the allowed values correspond to never, only if
    >> the count is positive and even for zero counts.  This is
    >> overridden by specifying 'exclude = NULL'.
    >> > 
    >> > > Specifying 'exclude = NULL' overrides 'useNA' to what
    >> value? The documentation doesn't say. Looking at the code
    >> of function 'table', the value is "always".
    >> > 
    >> > Yes, it should be documented what happens for this
    >> case, > (but read on ...)
    >> 
    >> and it is *not* true that the documentation does not say,
    >> since 2013, it has contained
    >> 
    >> exclude: levels to remove for all factors in ?...?.  If
    >> set to ?NULL?, it implies ?useNA = "always"?.  See
    >> ?Details? for its interpretation for non-factor
    >> arguments.
    >> 
    >> 
    >> > > For the example, in R 3.3.1, the result like in R
    >> 2.7.2 can be obtained with useNA = "ifany" and 'exclude'
    >> unspecified.
    >> > 
    >> > Yes.  What should we do?  > I currently think that we'd
    >> want to change the line
    >> > 
    >> > useNA <- if (!missing(exclude) && is.null(exclude))
    >> "always"
    >> > 
    >> > to
    >> > 
    >> > useNA <- if (!missing(exclude) && is.null(exclude))
    >> "ifany" # was "always"
    >> > 
    >> > 
    >> > which would not even contradict documentation, as
    >> indeed you > mentioned above, the exact action here had
    >> not been documented.
    >> 
    >> The last part ("which ..") above is wrong, as mentioned
    >> earlier.
    >> 
    >> The above change entails behaviour which looks better to
    >> me; however, the change *is* "against the current
    >> documentation".  and after experimentation (a "complete
    >> factorial design" of argument settings), I'm not entirely
    >> happy with the result.... and one reason is that 'exclude
    >> = NULL' and (e.g.)  'exclude = c()' are (still) handled
    >> differently: From a usual interpreation, both should mean
    >> "do not exclude any factor entries (and levels) from
    >> tabulation" but one of the two changes the default of
    >> 'useNA' and the other does not.  If we want a change
    >> anyway (and have to update the doc), it could be "more
    >> logical" to replace the line above by
    >> 
    >> useNA <- if (missing(useNA) && !missing(exclude) && !(NA
    >> %in% exclude)) "always"
    >> 
    >> notably, replacing 'useNA' *only* if it has not been
    >> specified, which seems much closer to "typically
    >> expected" behavior..
    >> 
    >> 
    >> 
    >> 
    >> > The change above at least does not break any of the
    >> standard R > tests ('make check-all', i.e., including the
    >> recommended > packages), which for me confirms that it
    >> may be "what is > best"...
    >> > 
    >> > ----
    >> > 
    >> > Thank you for mentioning the important consequence for
    >> summary(<logical>).  > They can helping insight what a
    >> "probably best" behavior should > be for these cases of
    >> table().
    >> > 
    >> > Martin Maechler, > ETH Zurich
    >> > 
    >> > > The result of 'summary' of a logical vector is
    >> affected. As mentioned in
    >> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/26775501/r-dropping-nas-in-logical-column-levels
    >> , in the code of function 'summary.default', for logical,
    >> table(object, exclude = NULL) is used.
    >> > 
    >> > > With R 2.7.2:
    >> > 
    >> > > > log <- c(NA, logical(4), NA, !logical(2), NA) > > >
    >> summary(log) > > Mode FALSE TRUE NA's > > logical 4 2 3 >
    >> > > summary(log[!is.na(log)]) > > Mode FALSE TRUE > >
    >> logical 4 2 > > > summary(TRUE) > > Mode TRUE > > logical
    >> 1
    >> > 
    >> > > With R 3.3.1:
    >> > 
    >> > > > log <- c(NA, logical(4), NA, !logical(2), NA) > > >
    >> summary(log) > > Mode FALSE TRUE NA's > > logical 4 2 3 >
    >> > > summary(log[!is.na(log)]) > > Mode FALSE TRUE NA's >
    >> > logical 4 2 0 > > > summary(TRUE) > > Mode TRUE NA's >
    >> > logical 1 0
    >> > 
    >> > > In R 3.3.1, "NA's' is always in the result of
    >> 'summary' of a logical vector. It is unlike 'summary' of
    >> a numeric vector.  > > On the other hand, in R 3.3.1,
    >> FALSE is not in the result of 'summary' of a logical
    >> vector that doesn't contain FALSE.
    >> > 
    >> > > I prefer the result of 'summary' of a logical vector
    >> like in R 2.7.2, or, alternatively, the result that
    >> always includes all possible values: FALSE, TRUE, NA.
    >> > 
    >> > I tend to agree, and strongly prefer the
    >> 'R(<=2.7.2)'-behavior > for table() {and hence
    >> summary(<logical>)}.

    >> 

    > ______________________________________________
    > R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
    > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel



[Rd] table(exclude = NULL) always includes NA
Suharto Anggono Suharto Anggono