Perhaps > Inf*1i [1] NaN+Infi
clarifies why it is *not* a bug. (Boy, did that jog some long dusty math memories :-) ) -- Bert On Thu, Sep 5, 2024 at 2:48 PM Duncan Murdoch <murdoch.dun...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 2024-09-05 4:23 p.m., Leo Mada via R-help wrote: > > Dear R Users, > > > > Is this desired behaviour? > > I presume it's a bug. > > > > atan(1i) > > # 0+Infi > > > > tan(atan(1i)) > > # 0+1i > > > > atan(1i) / 5 > > # NaN+Infi > > There's no need to involve atan() and tan() in this: > > > (0+Inf*1i)/5 > [1] NaN+Infi > > Why do you think this is a bug? > > Duncan Murdoch > > ______________________________________________ > R-help@r-project.org mailing list -- To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help > PLEASE do read the posting guide > https://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html > and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code. > [[alternative HTML version deleted]] ______________________________________________ R-help@r-project.org mailing list -- To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide https://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
