From murdoch at stats.uwo.ca  Wed Sep  2 23:30:00 2009
From: murdoch at stats.uwo.ca (Duncan Murdoch)
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2009 17:30:00 -0400
Subject: [Rd] Documentation for is.atomic and is.recursive
In-Reply-To: <8b356f880909021310l3805de62g2c2467db9a1591d2@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8b356f880909021139pa07d922q1f1c28a0fb70cdbe@mail.gmail.com>	
	<4A9EC967.3080507@stats.uwo.ca>
	<8b356f880909021310l3805de62g2c2467db9a1591d2@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4A9EE3D8.7040008@stats.uwo.ca>

On 02/09/2009 4:10 PM, Stavros Macrakis wrote:
> Let us stipulate that the current wording can be construed to be correct.

I'd rather just state that the current wording is correct, without the 
weasel words.

> I would nonetheless claim that the documentation as currently written
> is at best ambiguous and confusing, and would benefit from improved
> wording.

A claim that documentation would benefit from improved wording is a 
tautology.  A claim that the documentation is ambiguous requires more 
evidence than you've offered.  You have demonstrated that someone could 
be confused when reading it, but that isn't necessarily our responsibility.

Duncan Murdoch

> 
> What would be lost by that?
> 
>> One could argue that in R's pre-history we should have had is.atomic imply
>> is.vector, but that's not how things are documented, and I think we're
>> pretty much stuck with the definitions we've got on low level functions like
>> those.
> 
> I explicitly said in my mail that I was not suggesting that past
> design decisions (wise or unwise) be revisited; only that they be
> documented more clearly.
> 
>                -s
> 
> On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 3:37 PM, Duncan Murdoch<murdoch at stats.uwo.ca> wrote:
>> On 9/2/2009 2:39 PM, Stavros Macrakis wrote:
>>> The documentation for is.atomic and is.recursive is inconsistent with
>>> their behavior in R 2.9.1 Windows.
>>>
>>> ? is.atomic
>>>
>>>     'is.atomic' returns 'TRUE' if 'x' is an atomic vector (or 'NULL')
>>>     and 'FALSE' otherwise.
>>>     ...
>>>     'is.atomic' is true for the atomic vector types ('"logical"',
>>>     '"integer"', '"numeric"', '"complex"', '"character"' and '"raw"')
>>>     and 'NULL'.
>>>
>>> This description implies that is.atomic(x) implies is.vector(x)
>>> (assuming that an "atomic vector type" is a subset of a "vector
>>> type").  But in fact that is not true for values with class
>>> attributes:
>> I don't see is.vector mentioned there.  The description of is.vector on its
>> own man page implies the behaviour below; I think the description of
>> is.atomic that you quote above is also consistent with the behaviour.
>>
>> One could argue that in R's pre-history we should have had is.atomic imply
>> is.vector, but that's not how things are documented, and I think we're
>> pretty much stuck with the definitions we've got on low level functions like
>> those.
>>
>>
>>> is.atomic(factor(3)) => TRUE
>>> is.vector(factor(3)) => FALSE
>>>
>>> is.atomic(table(3)) => TRUE
>>> is.vector(factor(3)) => FALSE
>>>
>>> It appears, then, that is.atomic requires only that unclass(x) be an
>>> atomic vector, not that x be an atomic vector.
>>>
>>> There is also another case where is.atomic(x) != is.vector(unclass(x)):
>>>
>>> is.atomic(NULL) => TRUE
>>> is.vector(NULL) => FALSE
>>>
>>> It would be useful to make the documentation consistent with the
>>> implementation. (Presumably by updating the documentation, not
>>> changing the behavior.)
>>>
>>> The documentation continues:
>>>
>>>     'is.recursive' returns 'TRUE' if 'x' has a recursive (list-like)
>>>     structure and 'FALSE' otherwise.
>>>     ...
>>>     Most types of language objects are regarded as recursive: those
>>>     which are not are the atomic vector types, 'NULL' and symbols (as
>>>     given by 'as.name').
>>>
>>> But is.recursive(as.name('foo')) == is.recursive(quote(foo)) == FALSE.
>> That's what it says should happen.  symbols such as as.name('foo') are not
>> recursive.
>>
>> Duncan Murdoch
>>
>>> Again, it would be useful to make the documentation consistent with
>>> the implementation.
>>>
>>> To summarize all this in a table of the most common datatypes:
>>>
>>> outerl <-
>>>  function(f, a, b)
>>>    structure(outer(a,b,Vectorize(f)),
>>>              dimnames=list(a,b))
>>>
>>> outerl(function(x,f)(match.fun(f))(x),
>>>
>>> list(3,factor(c("a","b")),NULL,function()3,as.name("foo"),environment()),
>>>
>>> list("class","mode","storage.mode","is.vector","is.atomic","is.recursive"))
>>>
>>>              class         mode          storage.mode  is.vector
>>> is.atomic is.recursive
>>> 3             "numeric"     "numeric"     "double"      "TRUE"
>>> "TRUE"    "FALSE"           <<< OK
>>> 1:2           "factor"      "numeric"     "integer"     "FALSE"
>>> "TRUE"    "FALSE"             <<< inconsistent
>>> NULL          "NULL"        "NULL"        "NULL"        "FALSE"
>>> "TRUE"    "FALSE"         <<< inconsistent
>>> function ()   "function"    "function"    "function"    "FALSE"
>>> "FALSE"   "TRUE"          <<< OK
>>> foo           "name"        "name"        "symbol"      "FALSE"
>>> "FALSE"   "FALSE"          <<< inconsistent
>>> <environment> "environment" "environment" "environment" "FALSE"
>>> "FALSE"   "TRUE"     <<< OK
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>>           -s
>>>
>>> ______________________________________________
>>> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
>>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>>



[Rd] Documentation for is.atomic and is.recursive
Duncan Murdoch