From greg at warnes.net  Sat Apr 26 23:27:30 2014
From: greg at warnes.net (Gregory R. Warnes)
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2014 17:27:30 -0400
Subject: [Rd] type.convert and doubles
In-Reply-To: <21340.7717.170377.354029@stat.math.ethz.ch>
References: <3736EC2D-7360-4AF6-BF96-5A2DF3D3EF14@warnes.net>
	<326FE12B-D6FE-471B-9E0C-10BEC0584DB7@r-project.org>
	<534860CC.2090206@gmail.com>
	<17B09E7789D3104E8F5EEB0582A8D66F0129CED9FD8C@MSGRTPCCRF2WIN.DMN1.FMR.COM>
	<CAECWziJq92keAD2sHHE7ky6CHhqatrBOONq_Vf18AHJ8GActZw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAP01uRmdnTUgDH=sNryx9=w5Rtmw3b+8KiZOWPg48r6rc86ssQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAECWziKLBRjRNpneVJ2hNbTG3jF2ec6GeF9m+1S092WoufCdiQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<17B09E7789D3104E8F5EEB0582A8D66F0129CEDA0169@MSGRTPCCRF2WIN.DMN1.FMR.COM>
	<21330.29530.72292.435730@stat.math.ethz.ch>
	<A9466CB2-2B20-413D-986C-7EEC93CEC190@r-project.org>
	<21340.7717.170377.354029@stat.math.ethz.ch>
Message-ID: <390CD06C-3936-456D-88BE-BBA872B771B5@warnes.net>


On Apr 26, 2014, at 4:59 PM, Martin Maechler <maechler at stat.math.ethz.ch> wrote:

> 
>> I think there should be two separate discussions:
> 
>> a) have an option (argument to type.convert and possibly read.table) to enable/disable this behavior. I'm strongly in favor of this.
> 
> In my (not committed) version of R-devel, I now have
> 
>> str(type.convert(format(1/3, digits=17), exact=TRUE)) 
>  Factor w/ 1 level "0.33333333333333331": 1
>> str(type.convert(format(1/3, digits=17), exact=FALSE))
>  num 0.333
> 
> where the 'exact' argument name has been ``imported'' from the
> underlying C code.
> 

Looks good to me!

> <snip>
> 
> Instead of only  TRUE/FALSE, we could consider NA with 
> semantics "FALSE + warning" or also "TRUE + warning?.
> 
> 
>> b) decide what the default for a) will be. I have no strong opinion, I can see arguments in both directions
> 
> I think many have seen the good arguments in both directions.
> I'm still strongly advocating that we value long term stability
> higher here, and revert to more compatibility with the many
> years of previous versions.
> 
> If we'd use a default of 'exact=NA', I'd like it to mean
> FALSE + warning, but would not oppose much to  TRUE + warning.
> 

I vote for the default to be ?exact=NA? meaning ?FALSE + warning" 

-Greg


[Rd] type.convert and doubles
Gregory R. Warnes