From pgilbert902 at gmail.com  Thu Sep  8 20:00:58 2016
From: pgilbert902 at gmail.com (Paul Gilbert)
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2016 14:00:58 -0400
Subject: [Rd] R (development) changes in arith, logic,
 relop with (0-extent) arrays
In-Reply-To: <CADwqtCNXQpg6twfLv1LRscnMa=RND543Kgm1Xn-2APjgsOJWFA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <22469.52585.935914.336374@aragorn.wu.ac.at>
	<22470.37902.198447.925212@stat.math.ethz.ch>
	<22470.38100.993865.828495@aragorn.wu.ac.at>
	<22473.36759.791968.814130@stat.math.ethz.ch>
	<22473.38325.834026.658339@stat.math.ethz.ch>
	<22474.35836.489860.992765@aragorn.wu.ac.at>
	<CAPRP4-eKdb1AKGt73P-+khNXFAWm_4q2PZr69Q7BAjWcXKpSzA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPRP4-e4fL=j2xUVMjO-kdmeTfvF=+=9AKrU9+981Xvhwc2MPA@mail.gmail.com>
	<22477.32999.558832.601073@stat.math.ethz.ch>
	<22479.9847.747220.924128@stat.math.ethz.ch>
	<22479.58007.358121.626142@stat.math.ethz.ch>
	<CAHHjBM6yvrgwOFiFAtM+w8BGmdwn114Z6gfyjMEsLQDLV8mA5A@mail.gmail.com>
	<22481.16979.861309.264630@stat.math.ethz.ch>
	<CADwqtCN2PnTFwsrV-K3=hXt64r5eHYNt5dg0OZZdEcDtPOtJuQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAF8bMcYBMduLcp_aQoTh74MBBKB9QnTDQG9J_dZyTrFkGd0azw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADwqtCNXQpg6twfLv1LRscnMa=RND543Kgm1Xn-2APjgsOJWFA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4704b7c7-797c-a57b-6fc8-27e02920ff71@gmail.com>



On 09/08/2016 01:22 PM, Gabriel Becker wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 10:05 AM, William Dunlap <wdunlap at tibco.com> wrote:
>
>> Shouldn't binary operators (arithmetic and logical) should throw an error
>> when one operand is NULL (or other type that doesn't make sense)?  This is
>> a different case than a zero-length operand of a legitimate type.  E.g.,
>>      any(x < 0)
>> should return FALSE if x is number-like and length(x)==0 but give an error
>> if x is NULL.
>>
> Bill,
>
> That is a good point. I can see the argument for this in the case that the
> non-zero length is 1. I'm not sure which is better though. If we switch
> any() to all(), things get murky.
>
> Mathematically, all(x<0) is TRUE if x is length 0 (as are all(x==0), and
> all(x>0)), but the likelihood of this being a thought-bug on the author's
> part is exceedingly high, imho.

I suspect there may be more R users than you think that understand and 
use vacuously true in code. I don't really like the idea of turning a 
perfectly good and properly documented mathematical test into an error 
in order to protect against a possible "thought-bug".

Paul

So the desirable behavior seems to depend
> on the angle we look at it from.
>
> My personal opinion is that x < y with length(x)==0 should fail if length(y)
>> 1, at least, and I'd be for it being an error even if y is length 1,
> though I do acknowledge this is more likely (though still quite unlikely
> imho) to be the intended behavior.
>
> ~G
>
>>
>> I.e., I think the type check should be done before the length check.
>>
>>
>> Bill Dunlap
>> TIBCO Software
>> wdunlap tibco.com
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 8:43 AM, Gabriel Becker <gmbecker at ucdavis.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Martin,
>>>
>>> Like Robin and Oliver I think this type of edge-case consistency is
>>> important and that it's fantastic that R-core - and you personally - are
>>> willing to tackle some of these "gotcha" behaviors. "Little" stuff like
>>> this really does combine to go a long way to making R better and better.
>>>
>>> I do wonder a  bit about the
>>>
>>> x = 1:2
>>>
>>> y = NULL
>>>
>>> x < y
>>>
>>> case.
>>>
>>> Returning a logical of length 0 is more backwards compatible, but is it
>>> ever what the author actually intended? I have trouble thinking of a case
>>> where that less-than didn't carry an implicit assumption that y was
>>> non-NULL.  I can say that in my own code, I've never hit that behavior in
>>> a
>>> case that wasn't an error.
>>>
>>> My vote (unless someone else points out a compelling use for the behavior)
>>> is for the to throw an error. As a developer, I'd rather things like this
>>> break so the bug in my logic is visible, rather than  propagating as the
>>> 0-length logical is &'ed or |'ed with other logical vectors, or used to
>>> subset, or (in the case it should be length 1) passed to if() (if throws
>>> an
>>> error now, but the rest would silently "work").
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> ~G
>>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 3:49 AM, Martin Maechler <
>>> maechler at stat.math.ethz.ch>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>> robin hankin <hankin.robin at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>     on Thu, 8 Sep 2016 10:05:21 +1200 writes:
>>>>
>>>>     > Martin I'd like to make a comment; I think that R's
>>>>     > behaviour on 'edge' cases like this is an important thing
>>>>     > and it's great that you are working on it.
>>>>
>>>>     > I make heavy use of zero-extent arrays, chiefly because
>>>>     > the dimnames are an efficient and logical way to keep
>>>>     > track of certain types of information.
>>>>
>>>>     > If I have, for example,
>>>>
>>>>     > a <- array(0,c(2,0,2))
>>>>     > dimnames(a) <- list(name=c('Mike','Kevin'),
>>>> NULL,item=c("hat","scarf"))
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     > Then in R-3.3.1, 70800 I get
>>>>
>>>>     a> 0
>>>>     > logical(0)
>>>>     >>
>>>>
>>>>     > But in 71219 I get
>>>>
>>>>     a> 0
>>>>     > , , item = hat
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     > name
>>>>     > Mike
>>>>     > Kevin
>>>>
>>>>     > , , item = scarf
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     > name
>>>>     > Mike
>>>>     > Kevin
>>>>
>>>>     > (which is an empty logical array that holds the names of the
>>> people
>>>> and
>>>>     > their clothes). I find the behaviour of 71219 very much preferable
>>>> because
>>>>     > there is no reason to discard the information in the dimnames.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks a lot, Robin, (and Oliver) !
>>>>
>>>> Yes, the above is such a case where the new behavior makes much sense.
>>>> And this behavior remains identical after the 71222 amendment.
>>>>
>>>> Martin
>>>>
>>>>     > Best wishes
>>>>     > Robin
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     > On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 9:49 PM, Martin Maechler <
>>>> maechler at stat.math.ethz.ch>
>>>>     > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>     >> >>>>> Martin Maechler <maechler at stat.math.ethz.ch>
>>>>     >> >>>>>     on Tue, 6 Sep 2016 22:26:31 +0200 writes:
>>>>     >>
>>>>     >> > Yesterday, changes to R's development version were committed,
>>>>     >> relating
>>>>     >> > to arithmetic, logic ('&' and '|') and
>>>>     >> > comparison/relational ('<', '==') binary operators
>>>>     >> > which in NEWS are described as
>>>>     >>
>>>>     >> > SIGNIFICANT USER-VISIBLE CHANGES:
>>>>     >>
>>>>     >> > [.............]
>>>>     >>
>>>>     >> > ? Arithmetic, logic (?&?, ?|?) and comparison (aka
>>>>     >> > ?relational?, e.g., ?<?, ?==?) operations with arrays now
>>>>     >> > behave consistently, notably for arrays of length zero.
>>>>     >>
>>>>     >> > Arithmetic between length-1 arrays and longer non-arrays had
>>>>     >> > silently dropped the array attributes and recycled.  This
>>>>     >> > now gives a warning and will signal an error in the future,
>>>>     >> > as it has always for logic and comparison operations in
>>>>     >> > these cases (e.g., compare ?matrix(1,1) + 2:3? and
>>>>     >> > ?matrix(1,1) < 2:3?).
>>>>     >>
>>>>     >> > As the above "visually suggests" one could think of the changes
>>>>     >> > falling mainly two groups,
>>>>     >> > 1) <0-extent array>  (op)     <non-array>
>>>>     >> > 2) <1-extent array>  (arith)  <non-array of length != 1>
>>>>     >>
>>>>     >> > These changes are partly non-back compatible and may break
>>>>     >> > existing code.  We believe that the internal consistency gained
>>>>     >> > from the changes is worth the few places with problems.
>>>>     >>
>>>>     >> > We expect some package maintainers (10-20, or even more?) need
>>>>     >> > to adapt their code.
>>>>     >>
>>>>     >> > Case '2)' above mainly results in a new warning, e.g.,
>>>>     >>
>>>>     >> >> matrix(1,1) + 1:2
>>>>     >> > [1] 2 3
>>>>     >> > Warning message:
>>>>     >> > In matrix(1, 1) + 1:2 :
>>>>     >> > dropping dim() of array of length one.  Will become ERROR
>>>>     >> >>
>>>>     >>
>>>>     >> > whereas '1)' gives errors in cases the result silently was a
>>>>     >> > vector of length zero, or also keeps array (dim & dimnames) in
>>>>     >> > cases these were silently dropped.
>>>>     >>
>>>>     >> > The following is a "heavily" commented  R script showing (all
>>> ?)
>>>>     >> > the important cases with changes :
>>>>     >>
>>>>     >> > ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>     >> ----------------
>>>>     >>
>>>>     >> > (m <- cbind(a=1[0], b=2[0]))
>>>>     >> > Lm <- m; storage.mode(Lm) <- "logical"
>>>>     >> > Im <- m; storage.mode(Im) <- "integer"
>>>>     >>
>>>>     >> > ## 1. -------------------------
>>>>     >> > try( m & NULL ) # in R <= 3.3.x :
>>>>     >> > ## Error in m & NULL :
>>>>     >> > ##  operations are possible only for numeric, logical or
>>> complex
>>>>     >> types
>>>>     >> > ##
>>>>     >> > ## gives 'Lm' in R >= 3.4.0
>>>>     >>
>>>>     >> > ## 2. -------------------------
>>>>     >> > m + 2:3 ## gave numeric(0), now remains matrix identical to  m
>>>>     >> > Im + 2:3 ## gave integer(0), now remains matrix identical to Im
>>>>     >> (integer)
>>>>     >>
>>>>     >> > m > 1      ## gave logical(0), now remains matrix identical to
>>> Lm
>>>>     >> (logical)
>>>>     >> > m > 0.1[0] ##  ditto
>>>>     >> > m > NULL   ##  ditto
>>>>     >>
>>>>     >> > ## 3. -------------------------
>>>>     >> > mm <- m[,c(1:2,2:1,2)]
>>>>     >> > try( m == mm ) ## now gives error   "non-conformable arrays",
>>>>     >> > ## but gave logical(0) in R <= 3.3.x
>>>>     >>
>>>>     >> > ## 4. -------------------------
>>>>     >> > str( Im + NULL)  ## gave "num", now gives "int"
>>>>     >>
>>>>     >> > ## 5. -------------------------
>>>>     >> > ## special case for arithmetic w/ length-1 array
>>>>     >> > (m1 <- matrix(1,1,1, dimnames=list("Ro","col")))
>>>>     >> > (m2 <- matrix(1,2,1, dimnames=list(c("A","B"),"col")))
>>>>     >>
>>>>     >> > m1 + 1:2  # ->  2:3  but now with warning to  "become ERROR"
>>>>     >> > tools::assertError(m1 & 1:2)# ERR: dims [product 1] do not
>>> match
>>>> the
>>>>     >> length of object [2]
>>>>     >> > tools::assertError(m1 < 1:2)# ERR:                  (ditto)
>>>>     >> > ##
>>>>     >> > ## non-0-length arrays combined with {NULL or double() or ...}
>>>> *fail*
>>>>     >>
>>>>     >> > ### Length-1 arrays:  Arithmetic with |vectors| > 1  treated
>>> array
>>>>     >> as scalar
>>>>     >> > m1 + NULL # gave  numeric(0) in R <= 3.3.x --- still, *but* w/
>>>>     >> warning to "be ERROR"
>>>>     >> > try(m1 > NULL)    # gave  logical(0) in R <= 3.3.x --- an
>>> *error*
>>>>     >> now in R >= 3.4.0
>>>>     >> > tools::assertError(m1 & NULL)    # gave and gives error
>>>>     >> > tools::assertError(m1 | double())# ditto
>>>>     >> > ## m2 was slightly different:
>>>>     >> > tools::assertError(m2 + NULL)
>>>>     >> > tools::assertError(m2 & NULL)
>>>>     >> > try(m2 == NULL) ## was logical(0) in R <= 3.3.x; now error as
>>>> above!
>>>>     >>
>>>>     >> > ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>     >> ----------------
>>>>     >>
>>>>     >>
>>>>     >> > Note that in R's own  'nls'  sources, there was one case of
>>>>     >> > situation '2)' above, i.e. a  1x1-matrix was used as a
>>> "scalar".
>>>>     >>
>>>>     >> > In such cases, you should explicitly coerce it to a vector,
>>>>     >> > either ("self-explainingly") by  as.vector(.), or as I did in
>>>>     >> > the nls case  by  c(.) :  The latter is much less
>>>>     >> > self-explaining, but nicer to read in mathematical formulae,
>>> and
>>>>     >> > currently also more efficient because it is a .Primitive.
>>>>     >>
>>>>     >> > Please use R-devel with your code, and let us know if you see
>>>>     >> > effects that seem adverse.
>>>>     >>
>>>>     >> I've been slightly surprised (or even "frustrated") by the empty
>>>>     >> reaction on our R-devel list to this post.
>>>>     >>
>>>>     >> I would have expected some critique, may be even some praise,
>>>>     >> ... in any case some sign people are "thinking along" (as we say
>>>>     >> in German).
>>>>     >>
>>>>     >> In the mean time, I've actually thought along the one case which
>>>>     >> is last above:  The <op>  (binary operation) between a
>>>>     >> non-0-length array and a 0-length vector (and NULL which should
>>>>     >> be treated like a 0-length vector):
>>>>     >>
>>>>     >> R <= 3.3.1  *is* quite inconsistent with these:
>>>>     >>
>>>>     >>
>>>>     >> and my proposal above (implemented in R-devel, since Sep.5) would
>>>> give an
>>>>     >> error for all these, but instead, R really could be more lenient
>>>> here:
>>>>     >> A 0-length result is ok, and it should *not* inherit the array
>>>>     >> (dim, dimnames), since the array is not of length 0. So instead
>>>>     >> of the above [for the very last part only!!], we would aim for
>>>>     >> the following. These *all* give an error in current R-devel,
>>>>     >> with the exception of 'm1 + NULL' which "only" gives a "bad
>>>>     >> warning" :
>>>>     >>
>>>>     >> ------------------------
>>>>     >>
>>>>     >> m1 <- matrix(1,1)
>>>>     >> m2 <- matrix(1,2)
>>>>     >>
>>>>     >> m1 + NULL #    numeric(0) in R <= 3.3.x ---> OK ?!
>>>>     >> m1 > NULL #    logical(0) in R <= 3.3.x ---> OK ?!
>>>>     >> try(m1 & NULL)    # ERROR in R <= 3.3.x ---> change to logical(0)
>>>> ?!
>>>>     >> try(m1 | double())# ERROR in R <= 3.3.x ---> change to logical(0)
>>>> ?!
>>>>     >> ## m2 slightly different:
>>>>     >> try(m2 + NULL)  # ERROR in R <= 3.3.x ---> change to double(0)
>>> ?!
>>>>     >> try(m2 & NULL)  # ERROR in R <= 3.3.x ---> change to logical(0)
>>> ?!
>>>>     >> m2 == NULL # logical(0) in R <= 3.3.x ---> OK ?!
>>>>     >>
>>>>     >> ------------------------
>>>>     >>
>>>>     >> This would be slightly more back-compatible than the currently
>>>>     >> implemented proposal. Everything else I said remains true, and
>>>>     >> I'm pretty sure most changes needed in packages would remain to
>>> be
>>>> done.
>>>>     >>
>>>>     >> Opinions ?
>>>>     >>
>>>>     >>
>>>>     >>
>>>>     >> > In some case where R-devel now gives an error but did not
>>>>     >> > previously, we could contemplate giving another  "warning
>>>>     >> > .... 'to become ERROR'" if there was too much breakage,  though
>>>>     >> > I don't expect that.
>>>>     >>
>>>>     >>
>>>>     >> > For the R Core Team,
>>>>     >>
>>>>     >> > Martin Maechler,
>>>>     >> > ETH Zurich
>>>>     >>
>>>>     >> ______________________________________________
>>>>     >> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
>>>>     >> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>>>>     >>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     > --
>>>>     > Robin Hankin
>>>>     > Neutral theorist
>>>>     > hankin.robin at gmail.com
>>>>
>>>>     > [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
>>>>
>>>> ______________________________________________
>>>> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
>>>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Gabriel Becker, PhD
>>> Associate Scientist (Bioinformatics)
>>> Genentech Research
>>>
>>>         [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
>>>
>>> ______________________________________________
>>> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
>>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>>>
>>
>>
>
>



[Rd] R (development) changes in arith, logic, relop with (0-extent) arrays
Paul Gilbert