From j@g@nmn2 @end|ng |rom gm@||@com  Fri Sep 22 14:14:36 2023
From: j@g@nmn2 @end|ng |rom gm@||@com (Mikael Jagan)
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2023 08:14:36 -0400
Subject: [Rd] Recent changes to as.complex(NA_real_)
In-Reply-To: <25869.28353.595831.807741@stat.math.ethz.ch>
References: <1cf40db9-ea70-483a-a547-270da6926935@gmail.com>
 <25869.28353.595831.807741@stat.math.ethz.ch>
Message-ID: <1aba0839-6412-4fb9-99ff-30118851cf72@gmail.com>



On 2023-09-22 6:38 am, Martin Maechler wrote:
>>>>>> Mikael Jagan
>>>>>>      on Thu, 21 Sep 2023 00:47:39 -0400 writes:
> 
>      > Revisiting this thread from April:
> 
>      >      https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-devel/2023-April/082545.html
> 
>      > where the decision (not yet backported) was made for
>      > as.complex(NA_real_) to give NA_complex_ instead of
>      > complex(r=NA_real_, i=0), to be consistent with
>      > help("as.complex") and as.complex(NA) and as.complex(NA_integer_).
> 
>      > Was any consideration given to the alternative?
>      > That is, to changing as.complex(NA) and as.complex(NA_integer_) to
>      > give complex(r=NA_real_, i=0), consistent with
>      > as.complex(NA_real_), then amending help("as.complex")
>      > accordingly?
> 
> Hmm, as, from R-core, mostly I was involved, I admit to say "no",
> to my knowledge the (above) alternative wasn't considered.
> 
>    > The principle that
>    > Im(as.complex(<real=(double|integer|logical)>)) should be zero
>    > is quite fundamental, in my view, hence the "new" behaviour
>    > seems to really violate the principle of least surprise ...
> 
> of course "least surprise"  is somewhat subjective.  Still,
> I clearly agree that the above would be one desirable property.
> 
> I think that any solution will lead to *some* surprise for some
> cases, I think primarily because there are *many* different
> values z  for which  is.na(z)  is true,  and in any case
> NA_complex_  is only of the many.
> 
> I also agree with Mikael that we should reconsider the issue
> that was raised by Davis Vaughan here ("on R-devel") last April.
> 
>      > Another (but maybe weaker) argument is that
>      > double->complex coercions happen more often than
>      > logical->complex and integer->complex ones.  Changing the
>      > behaviour of the more frequently performed coercion is
>      > more likely to affect code "out there".
> 
>      > Yet another argument is that one expects
> 
>      >      identical(as.complex(NA_real_), NA_real_ + (0+0i))
> 
>      > to be TRUE, i.e., that coercing from double to complex is
>      > equivalent to adding a complex zero.  The new behaviour
>      > makes the above FALSE, since NA_real_ + (0+0i) gives
>      > complex(r=NA_real_, i=0).
> 
> No!  --- To my own surprise (!) --- in current R-devel the above is TRUE,
> and
>        NA_real_ + (0+0i)  , the same as
>        NA_real_ + 0i      , really gives  complex(r=NA, i=NA) :
> 

Thank you for the correction - indeed, as.complex(NA_real_) and
NA_real_ + (0+0i) are identical in both R-patched and R-devel,
both giving complex(r=NA_real_, i=0) in R-patched and both giving
NA_complex_ in R-devel.  I was hallucating, it seems ...

> Using showC() from ?complex
> 
>    showC <- function(z) noquote(sprintf("(R = %g, I = %g)", Re(z), Im(z)))
> 
> we see (in R-devel) quite consistently
> 
>> showC(NA_real_ + 0i)
> [1] (R = NA, I = NA)
>> showC(NA       + 0i)  # NA is 'logical'
> [1] (R = NA, I = NA)
>>
> 
> where as in R 4.3.1 and "R-patched" -- *in*consistently
> 
>> showC(NA_real_ + 0i)
> [1] (R = NA, I = 0)
>> showC(NA + 0i)
> [1] (R = NA, I = NA)
>>
> 
> .... and honestly, I do not see *where* (and when) we changed
> the underlying code (in arithmetic.c !?)  in R-devel to *also*
> produce  NA_complex_  in such complex *arithmetic*
> 

R_binary() in arithmetic.c has always coerced REALSXP->CPLXSXP when
encountering one of each.  Surely then the changes in coerce.c are the
cause and this arithmetic behaviour is just a (bad, IMO) side effect?

> 
>      > Having said that, one might also (but more naively) expect
> 
>      >     identical(as.complex(as.double(NA_complex_)), NA_complex_)
> 
>      > to be TRUE.
> 
> as in current R-devel
> 
>      > Under my proposal it continues to be FALSE.
> 
> as in "R-release"
> 
>      > Well, I'd prefer if it gave FALSE with a warning
>      > "imaginary parts discarded in coercion", but it seems that
>      > as.double(complex(r=a, i=b)) never warns when either of
>      > 'a' and 'b' is NA_real_ or NaN, even where "information"
>      > {nonzero 'b'} is clearly lost ...
> 
> The question of *warning* here is related indeed, but I think
> we should try to look at it only *secondary* to your first
> proposal.
> 
>      > Whatever decision is made about as.complex(NA_real_),
>      > maybe these points should be weighed before it becomes part of
>      > R-release ...
> 
>      > Mikael
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> Can we please get other opinions / ideas here?
> 

Thank you, Martin, for "reopening".

Mikael

> Thank you in advance for your thoughts!
> Martin
> 
> ---
> 
> PS:
> 
>   Our *print()*ing  of complex NA's ("NA" here meaning NA or NaN)
>   is also unsatisfactory, e.g. in the case where all entries of a
>   vector are NA in the sense of is.na(.), but their
>   Re() and Im() are not all NA:
>   
>    showC <- function(z) noquote(sprintf("(R = %g, I = %g)", Re(z), Im(z)))
>    z <- complex(, c(11, NA, NA), c(NA, 99, NA))
>    z
>    showC(z)
> 
> gives
> 
>    > z
>    [1] NA NA NA
>    > showC(z)
>    [1] (R = 11, I = NA) (R = NA, I = 99) (R = NA, I = NA)
> 
> but that (printing of complex) *is* another issue,
> in which we have the re-opened bugzilla PR#16752
>      ==>   https://bugs.r-project.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16752
> 
> on which we also worked during the R Sprint in Warwick three
> weeks ago, and where I want to commit changes in any case {but
> think we should change even a bit more than we got to during the
> Sprint}.
>



[Rd] Recent changes to as.complex(NA_real_)
Mikael Jagan