Can anyone explain the following?
> sum(!is.na(match(unique(catch$rec),unique(set$rec))))
[1] 0
implying that catch$rec and set$rec have nothing in
common. However:
> sum(!is.na(match(unique(ps$rec),unique(catch$rec))))
[1] 1521
implying they have 1521 elements in common. Moreover:
> junk.catch _ unique(catch$rec)
> junk.ps _ unique(ps$rec)
> sum(!is.na(match(junk.catch,junk.ps)))
[1] 1521
> sum(!is.na(match(junk.ps,junk.catch)))
[1] 1521
which makes sense. So why does embedding unique() within a
call to match() cause that behavior? (Note.. this is Splus 3.5
at work on an SGI. Also, there are lots more unique elements in
catch.rec than in ps.rec, though I don't see how that should be
relevant).
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pierre Kleiber Email: pkleiber@honlab.nmfs.hawaii.edu
Fishery Biologist Tel: 808 983-5399/944-1855
NOAA FISHERIES - Honolulu Laboratory Fax: 808 983-2902
2570 Dole St., Honolulu, HI 96822-2396
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This message was distributed by s-news@wubios.wustl.edu. To unsubscribe
send e-mail to s-news-request@wubios.wustl.edu with the BODY of the
message: unsubscribe s-news
|