From maechler@stat.math.ethz.ch  Tue Oct  3 11:40:21 2000
From: maechler@stat.math.ethz.ch (maechler@stat.math.ethz.ch)
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 12:40:21 +0200 (MET DST)
Subject: [Rd] pretty not covering the range properly (PR#673)
Message-ID: <200010031040.MAA26597@pubhealth.ku.dk>

>>>>> "PD" == Peter Dalgaard BSA <p.dalgaard@biostat.ku.dk> writes:

    PD> maechler@stat.math.ethz.ch writes:

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

    PD> Gulp. I'm pretty(!) sure there was a reason for changing it in the
    PD> other direction...
yes, the change last year (between 0.64 and 0.65) *was* for a good reason,
and I have not reverted that!
    PD> [I have a vague recollection of
    PD> pretty(pretty(x)) != pretty(x) or something like that]

    PD> Are we quite sure that it is not the caller that needs to be a
    PD> little more lenient in the bounds checking?

I've thought of that, too.
But no, I think we want to guarantuee the above 
    {which I had wrong in the last e-mail, it's "[length(p)]" !}
which we have had always in the documentation and which *is* S compatible.

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



-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
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)
maechler@stat.math.ethz.ch