t...@tsdye.com (Thomas S. Dye) writes: Thanks, it's clear to me with the difference between "value" and "output" now.
whether there is a way to tell emacs-lisp that "123456789123456789" is a string rather than a number. emacs-lisp handles the output as expected if the c1 has any character other than numbers as the following. ,---- | #+BEGIN_SRC R | df <- data.frame(c1="c123456789123456789",c2=2) | df$c1 <- as.vector(df$c1) | df | #+END_SRC | | #+RESULTS: | | c123456789123456789 | 2 | | `---- > Aloha Eric, > > Eric Luo <eric.we...@gmail.com> writes: > >> Hi, >> Why in the following code block, c1 was printed as scientific notation >> rather then characters. >> ,---- >> | >> | #+BEGIN_SRC R :results value >> | df <- data.frame(c1="123456789123456789",c2=2) >> | #+END_SRC >> | >> | #+RESULTS: >> | | 1.2345678912345678e+17 | 2 | >> `---- > > With :results value the results are passed from the source language into > emacs-lisp and then displayed in the buffer. So, the representation of > things like very large numbers depends on how that was done in > emacs-lisp, independent of the source language conventions. In this > case, I suspect the number was written with a formatting string and ‘%g’ > which uses scientific notation if that is a shorter representation. > > >> But if the header :results output, the result was expected. >> ,---- >> | >> | #+BEGIN_SRC R :results output >> | df <- data.frame(c1="123456789123456789",c2=2) >> | df >> | #+END_SRC >> | >> | #+RESULTS: >> | : c1 c2 >> | : 1 123456789123456789 2 >> `---- >> > > With :results output the results aren't translated into emacs-lisp. > Instead, the output from the source language is collected and displayed > in the buffer. Thus, the output conventions of the source language are > respected. > > hth,
