The summary function behaves inconsistently with data frame columns, e.g.
summary(rock) #max of area 12212, correct
summary(rock$area) #max of area 12210, incorrect max
I know that
summary(rock$area, digits=5)
will correct the error (I DID read the manual). But my point is the
inconsistency, because I get the correct answer without having to add the
digits option in the first statement when referring to the full dataframe. This
is one of the first functions that beginners use and if they have to RTM and
tinker with options before they can get a consistent value for the max of an
integer column, it is off-putting to say the least. At worst it confirms the
skeptic's suspicion that open-source software is a bit flaky. Would it be out
of line to report this to r-bugs -- at least to improve on the documentation?
-jms
r2.13.1 maclion
[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
______________________________________________
R-help@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
