From p.dalgaard@biostat.ku.dk  Tue Oct  3 10:57:32 2000
From: p.dalgaard@biostat.ku.dk (Peter Dalgaard BSA)
Date: 03 Oct 2000 11:57:32 +0200
Subject: [Rd] pretty not covering the range properly (PR#673)
In-Reply-To: maechler@stat.math.ethz.ch's message of "Tue, 3 Oct 2000 11:16:59 +0200 (MET DST)"
References: <200010030916.LAA25138@pubhealth.ku.dk>
Message-ID: <x21yxyw8kz.fsf@blueberry.kubism.ku.dk>

maechler@stat.math.ethz.ch writes:

> Ok, I've fixed pretty() for the development version
> such that
>      p <- pretty(x)
>      all(p[1] <= x & x <= p[2])
> 
> should be guaranteed (again).

Gulp. I'm pretty(!) sure there was a reason for changing it in the
other direction... [I have a vague recollection of pretty(pretty(x))
!= pretty(x) or something like that] Are we quite sure that it is not
the caller that needs to be a little more lenient in the bounds
checking?

OTOH, it's in code you wrote yourself...

-- 
   O__  ---- Peter Dalgaard             Blegdamsvej 3  
  c/ /'_ --- Dept. of Biostatistics     2200 Cph. N   
 (*) \(*) -- University of Copenhagen   Denmark      Ph: (+45) 35327918
~~~~~~~~~~ - (p.dalgaard@biostat.ku.dk)             FAX: (+45) 35327907
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
r-devel mailing list -- Read http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.html
Send "info", "help", or "[un]subscribe"
(in the "body", not the subject !)  To: r-devel-request@stat.math.ethz.ch
_._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._


[Rd] pretty not covering the range properly (PR#673)
Peter Dalgaard BSA