From m@ech|er @end|ng |rom @t@t@m@th@ethz@ch  Thu Nov  9 09:13:01 2023
From: m@ech|er @end|ng |rom @t@t@m@th@ethz@ch (Martin Maechler)
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2023 09:13:01 +0100
Subject: [Rd] c(NA, 0+1i) not the same as c(as.complex(NA), 0+1i)?
In-Reply-To: <9a9a13d5-c0dd-4f6e-a379-be0c934fb31c@gmail.com>
References: <mailman.53872.7.1699354802.63488.r-devel@r-project.org>
 <9a9a13d5-c0dd-4f6e-a379-be0c934fb31c@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <25932.38029.55724.624739@stat.math.ethz.ch>

>>>>> Mikael Jagan 
>>>>>     on Wed, 8 Nov 2023 11:13:18 -0500 writes:

    > So, to summarize, the open questions are:
    > (1) Should as.complex(NA_character_) give complex(r=NA_real_, i=0)
    > instead of NA_complex_?

    > (2) Should the first argument in c(NA, x) and c(NA_integer_, x),
    > where typeof(x) == "complex", be promoted to complex(r=NA_real_, i=0)
    > instead of NA_complex_?

    > My opinions:

    > (1) No.  The imaginary part of the result of parsing the strings "<b>i",
    > "<a>+<b>i", and "<a>-<b>i" can be nonzero.
    > Consider, e.g., Im(eval(str2lang("0+1i"))) and Im(as.complex("0+1i")).
    > If NA_character_ means "a string with unknown content", then we should
    > not assume that the string is parsed as a real number.

    > (2) Yes.  I'd very much like to preserve the identity of c(Im(NA), Im(x))
    > and Im(c(NA, x)) for atomic (excluding raw, character) vectors 'x'.

    > And while typing this response I noticed the following in current R-devel and
    > current R-patched:

    >> 0+1i
    > [1] 0+1i
    >> 1i
    > [1] 0+1i
    >> as.complex("0+1i")
    > [1] 0+1i
    >> as.complex("1i")
    > [1] NA
    > Warning message:
    > NAs introduced by coercion

    > That warning seems wrong to me ...

Well, actually, as we now have had the parser  accept
1i or 7i, 3.14i etc
I think  that it's not the *warning* that is wrong,
but rather the *result* :

Why should   as.complex("1i")  be different  from  one of these?

> 1i
[1] 0+1i
> str2lang("1i")
[1] 0+1i
> scan(textConnection("1i"), complex())
Read 1 item
[1] 0+1i
> 


    > Mikael

    > On 2023-11-07 6:00 am, r-devel-request at r-project.org wrote:
    >>>>>>> Michael Chirico
    >>>>>>> on Mon, 6 Nov 2023 23:18:40 -0800 writes:
    >> > Thanks Martin. My hang-up was not on what the outcome of as.complex(NA)
    >> > should be, but rather, how I should read code like c(x, y) generally. Till
    >> > now, I have thought of it like 'c(x, y)' is c(as(x, typeof(y)), y)` when
    >> > "type(y) > type(x)". Basically in my mind, "coercion" in R <->
    >> > as.<newtype>(.) (or coerceVector() in C).
    >> 
    >> > So I tracked down the source (which admittedly has been this way for much
    >> > longer than the present discussion) to see what exactly c() is doing in
    >> > this case:
    >> 
    >> >https://github.com/r-devel/r-svn/blob/71e7480b07767f3b7d5c45a4247959aa4d83d910/src/main/bind.c#L418-L425
    >> 
    >> > And indeed! It's not "coercion" in the sense I just described... there's a
    >> > branch for the 'x == NA_LOGICAL' case to_convert_  to NA_complex_.
    >> 
    >> Yes; "of course" ... still, I did not answer your main question,
    >> as you did ask +/-  if  c() should not get an adjustment to the
    >> new  as.complex(<numeric-alike>)  |-->  (Re = NA, Im = 0)
    >> behavior.
    >> 
    >> And that is still a valid open question. ... contrary to what I
    >> wrote yesterday; sorry for that "answering a different
    >> question".
    >> 
    >> Martin
    >> 
    >> 
    >> > On Mon, Nov 6, 2023 at 3:08?AM Martin Maechler<maechler at stat.math.ethz.ch>
    >> > wrote:
    >> 
    >> >> >>>>> Michael Chirico
    >> >> >>>>>     on Sun, 5 Nov 2023 09:41:42 -0800 writes:
    >> >>
    >> >> > This is another follow-up to the thread from September
    >> >> > "Recent changes to as.complex(NA_real_)".
    >> >>
    >> >> > A test in data.table was broken by the changes for NA
    >> >> > coercion to complex; the breakage essentially comes from
    >> >>
    >> >> > c(NA, 0+1i)
    >> >> > # vs
    >> >> > c(as.complex(NA), 0+1i)
    >> >>
    >> >> > The former is the output we tested against; the latter is
    >> >> essentially (via
    >> >> > coerceVector() in C) what's generated by our data.table::shift()
    >> >>
    >> >> > However, these are now (r85472) different:
    >> >>
    >> >> > Im(c(NA, 0+1i))
    >> >> > # [1] NA  1
    >> >> > Im(c(as.complex(NA), 0+1i))
    >> >> > # [1] 0 1
    >> >>
    >> >>
    >> >> > The former matches the behavior of directly using NA_complex_:
    >> >>
    >> >> > Im(c(NA_complex_, 0+1i))
    >> >> > # [1] NA  1
    >> >>
    >> >> > On R4.3.2, they both match the NA_complex_ behavior:
    >> >> > Im(c(NA, 0+1i))
    >> >> > # [1] NA  1
    >> >> > Im(c(as.complex(NA), 0+1i))
    >> >> > # [1] NA 1
    >> >>
    >> >> > Is this intended behavior, does something need to be updated for c()
    >> >> as
    >> >> > well?
    >> >>
    >> >> > Certainly it's messing with my understanding of how c() behaves,
    >> >> e.g. in ?c
    >> >>
    >> >> >> All arguments are coerced to a common type which is the type of the
    >> >> > returned value
    >> >>
    >> >> I think you have confused yourself, and everything behaves as expected:
    >> >>
    >> >> As we now have (in R-devel, since {r85233 | maechler | 2023-09-29 })
    >> >>
    >> >> ? ?as.complex(x)? now returns ?complex(real=x, imaginary=0)?
    >> >> for_all_  numerical and logical ?x?, notably also for ?NA?
    >> >> or ?NA_integer_?.
    >> >>
    >> >> ==> as.complex(NA) is indeed  complex(real = NA, imaginary = 0)
    >> >>
    >> >> And now, in your
    >> >>
    >> >> c(as.complex(NA), 0+1i)
    >> >>
    >> >> you are calling c() on two complex numbers, i.e., there is*no*  coercion
    >> >> (and c(.) is rather "trivial"),  and the same is true for
    >> >>
    >> >> c(NA_complex_, 0+1i)
    >> >>
    >> >>
    >> >> However, in 85233, I had only modified & added examples to  ?as.complex,
    >> >> and now have added more (corresponding to the above NEWS entry);
    -> svn rev 85475
    >> >>
    >> >> .............
    >> >>
    >> >> The underlying "dilemma" that nobody can help us with is that
    >> >> "almost infinitely" many different complex numbers z fulfill
    >> >> is.na(z) |--> TRUE
    >> >> and only one of them is  NA_complex_  and that may be unintuitive.
    >> >>
    >> >> OTOH, we already have for the doubles that there are at least two
    >> >> different x fulfulling is.na(x), namely  NaN and NA
    >> >> and from C's point of view there are even considerably more
    >> >> different NaN's .. but now I'm definitely digressing.
    >> >>
    >> >> Martin
    >> >>



[Rd] c(NA, 0+1i) not the same as c(as.complex(NA), 0+1i)?
Martin Maechler