From pd@|gd @end|ng |rom gm@||@com  Fri Mar 22 17:30:19 2019
From: pd@|gd @end|ng |rom gm@||@com (peter dalgaard)
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2019 17:30:19 +0100
Subject: [Rd] prettyNum digits=0 not compatible with scientific notation
In-Reply-To: <23700.42650.645514.620943@stat.math.ethz.ch>
References: <30D28A63376088428E8318DD67FD407FCADD67@ny-mailstore1.walleyetrading.net>
 <23700.42650.645514.620943@stat.math.ethz.ch>
Message-ID: <AAF25F95-1DDD-4C41-8132-54259D09679C@gmail.com>

FWIW, it doesn't seem to be happening on Mac OS:

> format(2^30, digits=0)
[1] "1.e+09"
> prettyNum(12345.6, digits=0)
[1] "1.e+04"

A glibc misfeature?

-pd

> On 22 Mar 2019, at 10:10 , Martin Maechler <maechler at stat.math.ethz.ch> wrote:
> 
> Thank you, Robert for raising this here !
> 
>>>>>> Robert McGehee 
>>>>>>    on Thu, 21 Mar 2019 20:56:19 +0000 writes:
> 
>> R developers,
>> Seems I get a bad result ("%#4.0-1e" in particular) when trying to use prettyNum digits=0 with scientific notation. I tried on both my Linux box and on an online R evaluator and saw the same problem, so it's not limited to my box at least. I see the problem in both R 3.5.3 and R 3.3.2.
> 
>> options(scipen= -100)
> 
> The above is extreme: You're basically setting an option to
> always see non-integer numbers in "scientific" format ..
> But read below about what 'digits' means in this case.
> 
>> prettyNum(1, digits=0)
>> [1] "%#4.0-1e"
>> prettyNum(2, digits=0)
>> [1] "%#4.0-1e"
>> prettyNum(1, digits=0, scientific=FALSE) # Works
>> [1] "1"
>> prettyNum(1:2, digits=0) # Works
>> [1] "1" "2"
>> prettyNum(c(1.1, 2.1), digits=0)
>> [1] "%#4.0-1e" "%#4.0-1e"
>> prettyNum(c(1.1, 2.1), digits=1) # Works
>> [1] "1e+00" "2e+00"
> 
> I'm the scape goat / culprit /.. : I have worked on tweaking the
> formatting of (non integer) numbers in R for a long time, on the
> way introducing prettyNum(), also already long ago...
> but then it's actually not prettyNum() but rather format() here :
> 
> Have you read its help page - *with* care?
> 
> If you do, you'd notice that 'digits' is not among the formal arguments
> of prettyNum() *and* that prettyNum() passes all its  `...`  to format().
> And if you read  ?format [which then you should to understand 'digits' !]
> you see
> 
>> digits: how many significant digits are to be used for numeric and
>>     complex ?x?.  The default, NULL, uses ?getOption("digits")?.
>>     This is a suggestion: enough decimal places will be used so that
>>     the smallest (in magnitude) number has this many significant 
>>     digits, and also to satisfy ?nsmall?.
> 
>> 	  [.....]
> 
> So, for the real numbers you use in your example, digits are
> *significant* digits as in  'options(digits= *)' or
> 'print(.., digits= *)'
> 
> ------ Excursion about 'integer' and format()ing ------------
> -- and you now may also understand why   prettyNum(1:2, digits=0)  works
> as you expect: integer formatting behaves differently   ....
> but I acknowledge that the  ?format   help page does not say so
> explicitly yet:  it 'real and complex' numbers for the
> 'scientific' argument,  and 'numeric and complex' numbers for
> the 'format' argument.
> If you replac numeric by reald, what this entails (by logic)
> that 'integer' numbers are *not* affected by 'digits' nor  'scientific'.
> 
> But there's yet more subtlety: 'integer' here means class/type "integer"
> and not just an integer number, i.e., the difference of  1L and 1 :
> 
>> str(1)
>   num 1
>> str(1L)
>   int 1
>> str(1:3)
>   int [1:3] 1 2 3
>> str(1:3 + 0)
>   num [1:3] 1 2 3
>> 
> ------ end of Excursion{'integer' ..} -------------------------------
> 
> Back to real numbers : 'digits' are used as *significant* digits
> (and are only a suggestion: format() and prettyNum() ensure
> a common width for their resulting strings so printing will be
> nicely aligned), see e.g.
> 
>> format(3.14, scientific=FALSE)
>   [1] "3.14"
>> format(3.14*c(1, 1e-7),   scientific=FALSE)
>   [1] "3.140000000" "0.000000314"
>> 
> 
> So back to your examples : What would you mean with
> ``0 significant digits'' ? 
> It really does not make sense to show *no* significant digits ..
> 
> Intuitively, without spending enough time, I'd say that the bug
> in format.default() -- which is called by prettyNum() in
> this case -- is that it does *not* treat
> 'digits = 0'  as 'digits = 1'  in this case.  
> 
> NB:  digits = 0 has been valid in    options(digits = 0)  etc,
> "forever" I think, possibly inherited from S,  but I don't
> really know and I wonder if we should not  make it invalid eventually
> requiring at least 1.
> So we could make it raise a *warning* (and set it to '1') for  now.
> What do others think? 
> 
> Anyone with S(-PLUS) or Terr or .. who can report if  digits=0
> is allowed there and what it does in a simple situation like
> 
>> format(as.integer(2^30), digits=0) # digits not used at all
>  [1] "1073741824"
>> format(2^30, digits=0)
>  [1] "%#4.0-1e"
>> 
> 
> 
> Last but not least:  If you really want to use exponential
> format, you should typically use  sprintf() or formatC()  where
> you can tweak to get what you want.
> 
> ______________________________________________
> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel

-- 
Peter Dalgaard, Professor,
Center for Statistics, Copenhagen Business School
Solbjerg Plads 3, 2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark
Phone: (+45)38153501
Office: A 4.23
Email: pd.mes at cbs.dk  Priv: PDalgd at gmail.com



[Rd] prettyNum digits=0 not compatible with scientific notation
peter dalgaard