In the following example, the date class shows Inf as NA
> as_date(Inf, origin = '1970-01-01') [1] NA This is misleading as is.na() reports incorrectly > is.na(as_date(Inf, origin = '1970-01-01')) [1] FALSE The correct approach here would probably to have an Inf (and -Inf) *displayed* rather than NA. [[alternative HTML version deleted]] ______________________________________________ [hidden email] mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel |
> as_date
Error: object 'as_date' not found Must be from some not-named package... But don't confuse the format of an object when printed with its underlying value: > as.Date(Inf,origin = '1970-01-01') [1] NA > str(as.Date(Inf,origin = '1970-01-01')) Date[1:1], format: NA > as.numeric(as.Date(Inf,origin = '1970-01-01')) [1] Inf > is.na(Inf) [1] FALSE > is.na(as.Date(Inf,origin = '1970-01-01')) [1] FALSE > str(as.Date(27,origin = '1970-01-01')) Date[1:1], format: "1970-01-28" > as.numeric(as.Date(27,origin = '1970-01-01')) [1] 27 -- Don MacQueen Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 7000 East Ave., L-627 Livermore, CA 94550 925-423-1062 Lab cell 925-724-7509 On 6/8/18, 1:02 PM, "R-devel on behalf of Werner Grundlingh" <[hidden email] on behalf of [hidden email]> wrote: In the following example, the date class shows Inf as NA > as_date(Inf, origin = '1970-01-01') [1] NA This is misleading as is.na() reports incorrectly > is.na(as_date(Inf, origin = '1970-01-01')) [1] FALSE The correct approach here would probably to have an Inf (and -Inf) *displayed* rather than NA. [[alternative HTML version deleted]] ______________________________________________ [hidden email] mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel ______________________________________________ [hidden email] mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel |
Indeed. as_date is from lubridate, but the same holds for as.Date.
The output and it's interpretation should be consistent, otherwise it leads to confusion when programming. I understand that the difference exists after asking a question on Stack Overflow: https://stackoverflow.com/q/50766089/914686 This understanding is never mentioned in the documentation - that an Inf date is actually represented as NA: https://www.rdocumentation.org/packages/base/versions/3.5.0/topics/as.Date So I'm of the impression that the display should be fixed as a first option (thereby providing clarity/transparency in terms of back-end and output), or the documentation amended (to highlight this) as a second option. [[alternative HTML version deleted]] ______________________________________________ [hidden email] mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel |
Hi Werner,
on ?is.na it says: > The default method for anyNA handles atomic vectors without a class and NULL. I hear you, and it is confusing to say the least. Looking deeper, the culprit seems to be in the conversion of a Date to POSIXlt prior to the formatting: > x <- as.Date(Inf,origin = '1970-01-01') > is.na(as.POSIXlt(x)) [1] TRUE Given this implicit conversion, I'd argue that as.Date should really return NA as well when passed an infinite value. The other option is to provide an is.na method for the Date class, which is -given is.na is an internal generic- rather trivial: > is.na.Date <- function(x) is.na(as.POSIXlt(x)) > is.na(x) [1] TRUE This might be a workaround for your current problem without needing changes to R itself. But this will give a "wrong" answer in the sense that this still works: > Sys.Date() - x Time difference of -Inf days I personally would go for NA as the "correct" date for an infinite value, but given that this will have implications in other areas, there is a possibility of breaking code and it should be investigated a bit further imho. Cheers Joris On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 11:21 PM, Werner Grundlingh <[hidden email]> wrote: > Indeed. as_date is from lubridate, but the same holds for as.Date. > > The output and it's interpretation should be consistent, otherwise it leads > to confusion when programming. I understand that the difference exists > after asking a question on Stack Overflow: > https://stackoverflow.com/q/50766089/914686 > This understanding is never mentioned in the documentation - that an Inf > date is actually represented as NA: > https://www.rdocumentation.org/packages/base/versions/3. > 5.0/topics/as.Date > So I'm of the impression that the display should be fixed as a first option > (thereby providing clarity/transparency in terms of back-end and output), > or the documentation amended (to highlight this) as a second option. > > [[alternative HTML version deleted]] > > ______________________________________________ > [hidden email] mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel > -- Joris Meys Statistical consultant Department of Data Analysis and Mathematical Modelling Ghent University Coupure Links 653, B-9000 Gent (Belgium) <https://maps.google.com/?q=Coupure+links+653,%C2%A0B-9000+Gent,%C2%A0Belgium&entry=gmail&source=g> ----------- Biowiskundedagen 2017-2018 http://www.biowiskundedagen.ugent.be/ ------------------------------- Disclaimer : http://helpdesk.ugent.be/e-maildisclaimer.php [[alternative HTML version deleted]] ______________________________________________ [hidden email] mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel |
And now I've seen I copied the wrong part of ?is.na
> The default method for is.na applied to an atomic vector returns a logical vector of the same length as its argument x, containing TRUE for those elements marked NA or, for numeric or complex vectors, NaN, and FALSE otherwise. Key point being "atomic vector" here. On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 1:41 PM, Joris Meys <[hidden email]> wrote: > Hi Werner, > > on ?is.na it says: > > > The default method for anyNA handles atomic vectors without a class and > NULL. > > I hear you, and it is confusing to say the least. Looking deeper, the > culprit seems to be in the conversion of a Date to POSIXlt prior to the > formatting: > > > x <- as.Date(Inf,origin = '1970-01-01') > > is.na(as.POSIXlt(x)) > [1] TRUE > > Given this implicit conversion, I'd argue that as.Date should really > return NA as well when passed an infinite value. The other option is to > provide an is.na method for the Date class, which is -given is.na is an > internal generic- rather trivial: > > > is.na.Date <- function(x) is.na(as.POSIXlt(x)) > > is.na(x) > [1] TRUE > > This might be a workaround for your current problem without needing > changes to R itself. But this will give a "wrong" answer in the sense that > this still works: > > > Sys.Date() - x > Time difference of -Inf days > > I personally would go for NA as the "correct" date for an infinite value, > but given that this will have implications in other areas, there is a > possibility of breaking code and it should be investigated a bit further > imho. > Cheers > Joris > > > > > On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 11:21 PM, Werner Grundlingh <[hidden email]> > wrote: > >> Indeed. as_date is from lubridate, but the same holds for as.Date. >> >> The output and it's interpretation should be consistent, otherwise it >> leads >> to confusion when programming. I understand that the difference exists >> after asking a question on Stack Overflow: >> https://stackoverflow.com/q/50766089/914686 >> This understanding is never mentioned in the documentation - that an Inf >> date is actually represented as NA: >> https://www.rdocumentation.org/packages/base/versions/3.5.0/ >> topics/as.Date >> So I'm of the impression that the display should be fixed as a first >> option >> (thereby providing clarity/transparency in terms of back-end and output), >> or the documentation amended (to highlight this) as a second option. >> >> [[alternative HTML version deleted]] >> >> ______________________________________________ >> [hidden email] mailing list >> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel >> > > > > -- > Joris Meys > Statistical consultant > > Department of Data Analysis and Mathematical Modelling > Ghent University > Coupure Links 653, B-9000 Gent (Belgium) > > <https://maps.google.com/?q=Coupure+links+653,%C2%A0B-9000+Gent,%C2%A0Belgium&entry=gmail&source=g> > > ----------- > Biowiskundedagen 2017-2018 > http://www.biowiskundedagen.ugent.be/ > > ------------------------------- > Disclaimer : http://helpdesk.ugent.be/e-maildisclaimer.php > -- Joris Meys Statistical consultant Department of Data Analysis and Mathematical Modelling Ghent University Coupure Links 653, B-9000 Gent (Belgium) <https://maps.google.com/?q=Coupure+links+653,%C2%A0B-9000+Gent,%C2%A0Belgium&entry=gmail&source=g> ----------- Biowiskundedagen 2017-2018 http://www.biowiskundedagen.ugent.be/ ------------------------------- Disclaimer : http://helpdesk.ugent.be/e-maildisclaimer.php [[alternative HTML version deleted]] ______________________________________________ [hidden email] mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel |
I don't think there's much wrong with is.na(as_date(Inf, origin='1970-01-01'))==FALSE, as there still is some "non-NA-ness" about the value (as difftime shows), but that the output when printing is confusing. The way cat is treating it is clearer: it does print Inf.
So would this be a solution? format.Date <- function (x, ...) { xx <- format(as.POSIXlt(x), ...) names(xx) <- names(x) xx[is.na(xx) & !is.na(x)] <- paste('Invalid date:',as.numeric(x[is.na(xx) & !is.na(x)])) xx } Which causes this behaviour, which I think is clearer: environment(print.Date) <- .GlobalEnv x <- as_date(Inf, origin='1970-01-01') print(x) # [1] "Invalid date: Inf" Best regards, Emil Bode Data-analyst +31 6 43 83 89 33 [hidden email] DANS: Netherlands Institute for Permanent Access to Digital Research Resources Anna van Saksenlaan 51 | 2593 HW Den Haag | +31 70 349 44 50 | [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> | dans.knaw.nl <applewebdata://71F677F0-6872-45F3-A6C4-4972BF87185B/www.dans.knaw.nl> DANS is an institute of the Dutch Academy KNAW <http://knaw.nl/nl> and funding organisation NWO <http://www.nwo.nl/>. Who will be the winner of the Dutch Data Prize 2018? Go to researchdata.nl to nominate. On 09/06/2018, 13:52, "R-devel on behalf of Joris Meys" <[hidden email] on behalf of [hidden email]> wrote: And now I've seen I copied the wrong part of ?is.na > The default method for is.na applied to an atomic vector returns a logical vector of the same length as its argument x, containing TRUE for those elements marked NA or, for numeric or complex vectors, NaN, and FALSE otherwise. Key point being "atomic vector" here. On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 1:41 PM, Joris Meys <[hidden email]> wrote: > Hi Werner, > > on ?is.na it says: > > > The default method for anyNA handles atomic vectors without a class and > NULL. > > I hear you, and it is confusing to say the least. Looking deeper, the > culprit seems to be in the conversion of a Date to POSIXlt prior to the > formatting: > > > x <- as.Date(Inf,origin = '1970-01-01') > > is.na(as.POSIXlt(x)) > [1] TRUE > > Given this implicit conversion, I'd argue that as.Date should really > return NA as well when passed an infinite value. The other option is to > provide an is.na method for the Date class, which is -given is.na is an > internal generic- rather trivial: > > > is.na.Date <- function(x) is.na(as.POSIXlt(x)) > > is.na(x) > [1] TRUE > > This might be a workaround for your current problem without needing > changes to R itself. But this will give a "wrong" answer in the sense that > this still works: > > > Sys.Date() - x > Time difference of -Inf days > > I personally would go for NA as the "correct" date for an infinite value, > but given that this will have implications in other areas, there is a > possibility of breaking code and it should be investigated a bit further > imho. > Cheers > Joris > > > > > On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 11:21 PM, Werner Grundlingh <[hidden email]> > wrote: > >> Indeed. as_date is from lubridate, but the same holds for as.Date. >> >> The output and it's interpretation should be consistent, otherwise it >> leads >> to confusion when programming. I understand that the difference exists >> after asking a question on Stack Overflow: >> https://stackoverflow.com/q/50766089/914686 >> This understanding is never mentioned in the documentation - that an Inf >> date is actually represented as NA: >> https://www.rdocumentation.org/packages/base/versions/3.5.0/ >> topics/as.Date >> So I'm of the impression that the display should be fixed as a first >> option >> (thereby providing clarity/transparency in terms of back-end and output), >> or the documentation amended (to highlight this) as a second option. >> >> [[alternative HTML version deleted]] >> >> ______________________________________________ >> [hidden email] mailing list >> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel >> > > > > -- > Joris Meys > Statistical consultant > > Department of Data Analysis and Mathematical Modelling > Ghent University > Coupure Links 653, B-9000 Gent (Belgium) > > <https://maps.google.com/?q=Coupure+links+653,%C2%A0B-9000+Gent,%C2%A0Belgium&entry=gmail&source=g> > > ----------- > Biowiskundedagen 2017-2018 > http://www.biowiskundedagen.ugent.be/ > > ------------------------------- > Disclaimer : http://helpdesk.ugent.be/e-maildisclaimer.php > -- Joris Meys Statistical consultant Department of Data Analysis and Mathematical Modelling Ghent University Coupure Links 653, B-9000 Gent (Belgium) <https://maps.google.com/?q=Coupure+links+653,%C2%A0B-9000+Gent,%C2%A0Belgium&entry=gmail&source=g> ----------- Biowiskundedagen 2017-2018 http://www.biowiskundedagen.ugent.be/ ------------------------------- Disclaimer : http://helpdesk.ugent.be/e-maildisclaimer.php [[alternative HTML version deleted]] ______________________________________________ [hidden email] mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel ______________________________________________ [hidden email] mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel |
In reply to this post by Joris FA Meys
>>>>> Joris Meys
>>>>> on Sat, 9 Jun 2018 13:45:21 +0200 writes: > And now I've seen I copied the wrong part of ?is.na >> The default method for is.na applied to an atomic vector >> returns a > logical vector of the same length as its argument x, > containing TRUE for those elements marked NA or, for > numeric or complex vectors, NaN, and FALSE otherwise. > Key point being "atomic vector" here. and a Date vector *is* atomic .. (so I'm confused about what that issue is .. but read one. > On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 1:41 PM, Joris Meys > <[hidden email]> wrote: >> Hi Werner, >> >> on ?is.na it says: >> >> > The default method for anyNA handles atomic vectors >> without a class and NULL. >> >> I hear you, and it is confusing to say the least. Looking >> deeper, the culprit seems to be in the conversion of a >> Date to POSIXlt prior to the formatting: >> >> > x <- as.Date(Inf,origin = '1970-01-01') >> > is.na(as.POSIXlt(x)) [1] TRUE >> >> Given this implicit conversion, I'd argue that as.Date >> should really return NA as well when passed an infinite >> value. The other option is to provide an is.na method for >> the Date class, which is -given is.na is an internal >> generic- rather trivial: >> >> > is.na.Date <- function(x) is.na(as.POSIXlt(x)) >> > is.na(x) [1] TRUE >> >> This might be a workaround for your current problem >> without needing changes to R itself. But this will give a >> "wrong" answer in the sense that this still works: >> >> > Sys.Date() - x Time difference of -Inf days >> >> I personally would go for NA as the "correct" date for an >> infinite value, but given that this will have >> implications in other areas, there is a possibility of >> breaking code and it should be investigated a bit further >> imho. Cheers Joris Indeed. I could argue it is wrong to treat '+/- Inf' as NA for dates (as well as for date times), because the Inf *does* contain information in some sense: Infinitely far in the future vs Infinitely far in the past which may make sense in some case ... in the same sense +Inf and -Inf do make sense for numbers in some cases. Martin ______________________________________________ [hidden email] mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel |
On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 11:12 AM, Martin Maechler <
[hidden email]> wrote: > > and a Date vector *is* atomic .. (so I'm confused about what > that issue is .. but read one. > Indeed. I tend to exclude everything with a formal class from "atomic" (eg factors et al) because they do behave differently sometimes, but technically that's not correct. Thank you for pointing that out. > Indeed. I could argue it is wrong to treat '+/- Inf' as NA for > dates (as well as for date times), because the Inf *does* > contain information in some sense: > > Infinitely far in the future > vs Infinitely far in the past > > which may make sense in some case ... in the same sense +Inf and > -Inf do make sense for numbers in some cases. > > Martin > I considered that too. But as shown in the code above: anything that relies on POSIXlt to process the date, will actually convert the Inf value to NA. The problem becomes a bit more confusing, as as.POSIXct() does not convert to NA. > x <- as.Date(Inf, origin = '1970-01-01') > is.na(x) [1] FALSE > is.na(as.POSIXct(x)) [1] FALSE > is.na(as.POSIXlt(x)) [1] TRUE I can guess why this happens. For a date that's infinitely far in the future, it is impossible to determine an exact hour, minute, second, day, month, ... So these values in the POSIXlt "list" format can't be anything but NA. So I totally understand the value of having Inf dates. The trade-off to consider here is whether we strive for consistency among the different datetime classes, or strive for correct representation of the actual value of the date. Cheers Joris -- Joris Meys Statistical consultant Department of Data Analysis and Mathematical Modelling Ghent University Coupure Links 653, B-9000 Gent (Belgium) <https://maps.google.com/?q=Coupure+links+653,%C2%A0B-9000+Gent,%C2%A0Belgium&entry=gmail&source=g> ----------- Biowiskundedagen 2017-2018 http://www.biowiskundedagen.ugent.be/ ------------------------------- Disclaimer : http://helpdesk.ugent.be/e-maildisclaimer.php [[alternative HTML version deleted]] ______________________________________________ [hidden email] mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel |
In reply to this post by Emil
Emil et al.,
On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 1:08 AM, Emil Bode <[hidden email]> wrote: > I don't think there's much wrong with is.na(as_date(Inf, > origin='1970-01-01'))==FALSE, as there still is some "non-NA-ness" about > the value (as difftime shows), but that the output when printing is > confusing. The way cat is treating it is clearer: it does print Inf. > > So would this be a solution? > > format.Date <- function (x, ...) > { > xx <- format(as.POSIXlt(x), ...) > names(xx) <- names(x) > xx[is.na(xx) & !is.na(x)] <- paste('Invalid date:',as.numeric(x[is.na(xx) > & !is.na(x)])) > xx > } > > Which causes this behaviour, which I think is clearer: > > environment(print.Date) <- .GlobalEnv > x <- as_date(Inf, origin='1970-01-01') > print(x) > # [1] "Invalid date: Inf" > In my opinion, it's either invalid or it isn't. If it's actually invalid, as_date (and the equivalent core function which is actually relevant on this list) should fail; because it's an invalid date. If it *isn't* invalid, having the print method tell users it is seems problematic. And I think people seem to be leaning towards it not being invalid. A bit surprising to me, as my personal first thought was that infinite dates don't make any sense, but I don't really have a horse in this race and so defer to the cooler heads that are saying having an infinite date perhaps should not be disallowed explicitly. If it's not, though, it's not invalid and we shouldn't confuse users by saying it is, imho. Best, ~G > > Best regards, > Emil Bode > > Data-analyst > > +31 6 43 83 89 33 > [hidden email] > > DANS: Netherlands Institute for Permanent Access to Digital Research > Resources > Anna van Saksenlaan 51 | 2593 HW Den Haag | +31 70 349 44 50 | > [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> | dans.knaw.nl > <applewebdata://71F677F0-6872-45F3-A6C4-4972BF87185B/www.dans.knaw.nl> > DANS is an institute of the Dutch Academy KNAW <http://knaw.nl/nl> and > funding organisation NWO <http://www.nwo.nl/>. > > Who will be the winner of the Dutch Data Prize 2018? Go to researchdata.nl > to nominate. > > On 09/06/2018, 13:52, "R-devel on behalf of Joris Meys" < > [hidden email] on behalf of [hidden email]> wrote: > > And now I've seen I copied the wrong part of ?is.na > > > The default method for is.na applied to an atomic vector returns a > logical vector of the same length as its argument x, containing TRUE > for > those elements marked NA or, for numeric or complex vectors, NaN, and > FALSE > otherwise. > > Key point being "atomic vector" here. > > > On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 1:41 PM, Joris Meys <[hidden email]> > wrote: > > > Hi Werner, > > > > on ?is.na it says: > > > > > The default method for anyNA handles atomic vectors without a > class and > > NULL. > > > > I hear you, and it is confusing to say the least. Looking deeper, the > > culprit seems to be in the conversion of a Date to POSIXlt prior to > the > > formatting: > > > > > x <- as.Date(Inf,origin = '1970-01-01') > > > is.na(as.POSIXlt(x)) > > [1] TRUE > > > > Given this implicit conversion, I'd argue that as.Date should really > > return NA as well when passed an infinite value. The other option is > to > > provide an is.na method for the Date class, which is -given is.na > is an > > internal generic- rather trivial: > > > > > is.na.Date <- function(x) is.na(as.POSIXlt(x)) > > > is.na(x) > > [1] TRUE > > > > This might be a workaround for your current problem without needing > > changes to R itself. But this will give a "wrong" answer in the > sense that > > this still works: > > > > > Sys.Date() - x > > Time difference of -Inf days > > > > I personally would go for NA as the "correct" date for an infinite > value, > > but given that this will have implications in other areas, there is a > > possibility of breaking code and it should be investigated a bit > further > > imho. > > Cheers > > Joris > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 11:21 PM, Werner Grundlingh < > [hidden email]> > > wrote: > > > >> Indeed. as_date is from lubridate, but the same holds for as.Date. > >> > >> The output and it's interpretation should be consistent, otherwise > it > >> leads > >> to confusion when programming. I understand that the difference > exists > >> after asking a question on Stack Overflow: > >> https://stackoverflow.com/q/50766089/914686 > >> This understanding is never mentioned in the documentation - that > an Inf > >> date is actually represented as NA: > >> https://www.rdocumentation.org/packages/base/versions/3.5.0/ > >> topics/as.Date > >> So I'm of the impression that the display should be fixed as a first > >> option > >> (thereby providing clarity/transparency in terms of back-end and > output), > >> or the documentation amended (to highlight this) as a second option. > >> > >> [[alternative HTML version deleted]] > >> > >> ______________________________________________ > >> [hidden email] mailing list > >> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Joris Meys > > Statistical consultant > > > > Department of Data Analysis and Mathematical Modelling > > Ghent University > > Coupure Links 653, B-9000 Gent (Belgium) > > > > <https://maps.google.com/?q=Coupure+links+653,%C2%A0B- > 9000+Gent,%C2%A0Belgium&entry=gmail&source=g> > > > > ----------- > > Biowiskundedagen 2017-2018 > > http://www.biowiskundedagen.ugent.be/ > > > > ------------------------------- > > Disclaimer : http://helpdesk.ugent.be/e-maildisclaimer.php > > > > > > -- > Joris Meys > Statistical consultant > > Department of Data Analysis and Mathematical Modelling > Ghent University > Coupure Links 653, B-9000 Gent (Belgium) > <https://maps.google.com/?q=Coupure+links+653,%C2%A0B- > 9000+Gent,%C2%A0Belgium&entry=gmail&source=g> > > ----------- > Biowiskundedagen 2017-2018 > http://www.biowiskundedagen.ugent.be/ > > ------------------------------- > Disclaimer : http://helpdesk.ugent.be/e-maildisclaimer.php > > [[alternative HTML version deleted]] > > ______________________________________________ > [hidden email] mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel > > > ______________________________________________ > [hidden email] mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel > -- Gabriel Becker, Ph.D Scientist Bioinformatics and Computational Biology Genentech Research [[alternative HTML version deleted]] ______________________________________________ [hidden email] mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel |
I agree that calling it invalid is a bit confusing, but I’m not sure what the wording should be, as the problem is that the conversion to POSIXlt is failing.
The best solution would be to extend the whole POSIXlt-class, but that’s too much work. I’ve done some experiments, and it also seems that the Date class can store larger values than POSIXlt: > as.Date(8e9, origin='1970-01-01')==as.Date(9e9, origin='1970-01-01') [1] FALSE > as.POSIXlt(as.Date(8e9, origin='1970-01-01'))==as.POSIXlt(as.Date(9e9, origin='1970-01-01')) [1] TRUE > as.POSIXlt(as.Date(8e9, origin='1970-01-01')) [1] "-5877641-06-23 UTC" # Same for 9e9 > as.Date(8e9, origin='1970-01-01')>Sys.Date() [1] TRUE > as.POSIXlt(as.Date(8e9, origin='1970-01-01'))>as.POSIXlt(Sys.Date()) [1] FALSE So the situation as I see it now: * Having an infinite date may convey some information, so we shouldn’t prohibit it anyway * Idem for very large values (positive or negative) * But we should warn users that their dates may not be neatly representable, that there is no way to use the default-print * So for values where the POSIXlt-print fails, I think it’s best to print the numerical value, along with some text warning the user So I’ve adapted the format-function a bit more, with behaviour below. The details can be adapted of course, but I feel it’s best to print some variant of as.numeric(x) if as.POSIXlt(x) turns out to be unreliable, and further leave is.na() format.Date <- function (x, ...) { xx <- format(as.POSIXlt(x), ...) names(xx) <- names(x) if(any(!is.na(x) & (-719162>as.numeric(x) | as.numeric(x)>2932896))) { xx[!is.na(x) & (-719162>as.numeric(x) | as.numeric(x)>2932896)] <- paste('Date with numerical value',as.numeric(x[!is.na(x) & (-719162>as.numeric(x) | as.numeric(x)>2932896)])) warning('Some dates are not in the interval 01-01-01 and 9999-12-31, showing numerical value.') } xx } With the following results: > environment(print.Date) <- .GlobalEnv > as.Date(Inf, origin='1970-01-01') [1] "Date with numerical value Inf" Warning message: In format.Date(x) : Some dates are not in the interval 01-01-01 and 9999-12-31, showing numerical value. From: Gabe Becker <[hidden email]> Date: Monday, 11 June 2018 at 23:59 To: Emil Bode <[hidden email]> Cc: Joris Meys <[hidden email]>, Werner Grundlingh <[hidden email]>, "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>, r-devel <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [Rd] Date class shows Inf as NA; this confuses the use of is.na() format.Date <- function (x, ...) { xx <- format(as.POSIXlt(x), ...) names(xx) <- names(x) xx[is.na<http://is.na>(xx) & !is.na<http://is.na>(x)] <- paste('Invalid date:',as.numeric(x[is.na<http://is.na>(xx) & !is.na<http://is.na>(x)])) xx } [[alternative HTML version deleted]] ______________________________________________ [hidden email] mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel |
>>>>> Emil Bode
>>>>> on Tue, 12 Jun 2018 12:00:42 +0000 writes: > I agree that calling it invalid is a bit confusing, but I’m not sure what the wording should be, as the problem is that the conversion to POSIXlt is failing. > The best solution would be to extend the whole POSIXlt-class, but that’s too much work. > I’ve done some experiments, and it also seems that the Date class can store larger values than POSIXlt: > > as.Date(8e9, origin='1970-01-01')==as.Date(9e9, origin='1970-01-01') > [1] FALSE > > as.POSIXlt(as.Date(8e9, origin='1970-01-01'))==as.POSIXlt(as.Date(9e9, origin='1970-01-01')) > [1] TRUE > > as.POSIXlt(as.Date(8e9, origin='1970-01-01')) > [1] "-5877641-06-23 UTC" > # Same for 9e9 > > as.Date(8e9, origin='1970-01-01')>Sys.Date() > [1] TRUE > > as.POSIXlt(as.Date(8e9, origin='1970-01-01'))>as.POSIXlt(Sys.Date()) > [1] FALSE > > So the situation as I see it now: > > * Having an infinite date may convey some information, so > we shouldn’t prohibit it anyway > * Idem for very large values (positive or negative) Indeed -- good you found that you don't have to go all the way to Inf ... and that is typical (and the reason why one has to solve the problem anyway and way Inf is not really a special case in that sense (but nicely in another sense) ! > * But we should warn users that their dates may not be neatly representable, that there is no way to use the default-print > * So for values where the POSIXlt-print fails, I think it’s best to print the numerical value, along with some text warning the user > So I’ve adapted the format-function a bit more, with behaviour below. > The details can be adapted of course, but I feel it’s best to print some variant of as.numeric(x) if as.POSIXlt(x) turns out to be unreliable, and further leave is.na() > > format.Date <- function (x, ...) > { > xx <- format(as.POSIXlt(x), ...) > names(xx) <- names(x) > if(any(!is.na(x) & (-719162>as.numeric(x) | as.numeric(x)>2932896))) { > xx[!is.na(x) & (-719162>as.numeric(x) | as.numeric(x)>2932896)] <- > paste('Date with numerical value',as.numeric(x[!is.na(x) & (-719162>as.numeric(x) | as.numeric(x)>2932896)])) > warning('Some dates are not in the interval 01-01-01 and 9999-12-31, showing numerical value.') > } > xx > } > > With the following results: > > > environment(print.Date) <- .GlobalEnv > > as.Date(Inf, origin='1970-01-01') > [1] "Date with numerical value Inf" > Warning message: > In format.Date(x) : > Some dates are not in the interval 01-01-01 and 9999-12-31, showing numerical value. > However, I'd propose another route to go for "the next version of R": When I consider > str(unclass(as.POSIXlt.Date(Sys.time() + 1e50))) List of 9 $ sec : num 0 $ min : int 0 $ hour : int 0 $ mday : int 23 $ mon : int 5 $ year : int -5879541 $ wday : int 2 $ yday : int 173 $ isdst: int 0 - attr(*, "tzone")= chr "UTC" > we see the integer overflow (to negative here) and that all components but 'sec' (because allow fractions!) are integer. I think we should allow 'year' to be "double" instead, and so it could also be +Inf or -Inf and we'd nicely cover the conversions from and to 'numeric' -- which is really used internally for dates and date-times in POSIXct. Martin > > From: Gabe Becker <[hidden email]> > Date: Monday, 11 June 2018 at 23:59 > To: Emil Bode <[hidden email]> > Cc: Joris Meys <[hidden email]>, Werner Grundlingh <[hidden email]>, "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>, r-devel <[hidden email]> > Subject: Re: [Rd] Date class shows Inf as NA; this confuses the use of is.na() > > format.Date <- function (x, ...) > { > xx <- format(as.POSIXlt(x), ...) > names(xx) <- names(x) > xx[is.na<http://is.na>(xx) & !is.na<http://is.na>(x)] <- paste('Invalid date:',as.numeric(x[is.na<http://is.na>(xx) & !is.na<http://is.na>(x)])) > xx > } ______________________________________________ [hidden email] mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel |
On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 6:28 PM, Martin Maechler <[hidden email]
> wrote: > > I think we should allow 'year' to be "double" instead, and so it > could also be +Inf or -Inf and we'd nicely cover > the conversions from and to 'numeric' -- which is really used > internally for dates and date-times in POSIXct. > > Martin > > That would be perfect and tackles both consistency with other formats and the confusing print() output. I'm all for it. Cheers Joris -- Joris Meys Statistical consultant Department of Data Analysis and Mathematical Modelling Ghent University Coupure Links 653, B-9000 Gent (Belgium) <https://maps.google.com/?q=Coupure+links+653,%C2%A0B-9000+Gent,%C2%A0Belgium&entry=gmail&source=g> ----------- Biowiskundedagen 2017-2018 http://www.biowiskundedagen.ugent.be/ ------------------------------- Disclaimer : http://helpdesk.ugent.be/e-maildisclaimer.php [[alternative HTML version deleted]] ______________________________________________ [hidden email] mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel |
In reply to this post by Martin Maechler
Martin, et al.,
> I think we should allow 'year' to be "double" instead, and so it > could also be +Inf or -Inf and we'd nicely cover > the conversions from and to 'numeric' -- which is really used > internally for dates and date-times in POSIXct. storing years as a double makes me worry slightly about ---- > year <- 1e50 > (year+1)-year [1] 0 ---- which is not how one thinks of years (or integers) as behaving. cheers, Greg ps -- sorry for the ">" overloading! ______________________________________________ [hidden email] mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel |
Greg,
I see what you mean, but on the other hand, that's not how we think about real numbers working either, and doubles have that behavior generally. It might be possible to put checks in (with a potentially non-trivial overhead cost) to disallow that kind of thing, but again R (and everyone else, I think?) doesn't do so for regular doubles. Also, I would expect the year 1e50 and the "year" Inf to be functionally equivalent in meaning (and largely meaningless) in context. Best, ~G On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 4:23 PM, Greg Minshall <[hidden email]> wrote: > Martin, et al., > > > I think we should allow 'year' to be "double" instead, and so it > > could also be +Inf or -Inf and we'd nicely cover > > the conversions from and to 'numeric' -- which is really used > > internally for dates and date-times in POSIXct. > > storing years as a double makes me worry slightly about > ---- > > year <- 1e50 > > (year+1)-year > [1] 0 > ---- > which is not how one thinks of years (or integers) as behaving. > > cheers, Greg > > ps -- sorry for the ">" overloading! > > ______________________________________________ > [hidden email] mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel > > -- Gabriel Becker, Ph.D Scientist Bioinformatics and Computational Biology Genentech Research [[alternative HTML version deleted]] ______________________________________________ [hidden email] mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel |
Gabe,
> Also, I would expect the year 1e50 and the "year" Inf to be functionally > equivalent in meaning (and largely meaningless) in context. indeed. thanks, Greg ______________________________________________ [hidden email] mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel |
Free forum by Nabble - Free Resume Builder | Edit this page |