dealing with NAs

[moodymudskipper]

@KKPMW Our package functions produce NAs, which might not always be desirable for all situations:

c(1:4) %in{}% c(4,NA,3)
#> [1]   NA   NA TRUE TRUE
c(1:4) %[in{}% c(4,NA,3)
#> [1] NA NA  3  4

do you think it would stay in the scope of the package to add helpers to remove NAs or replace them by FALSE (or by symetry though less useful, by TRUE)

c(1:4) %in{}% na_rm(c(4,NA,3))
#> [1] FALSE FALSE TRUE TRUE

c(1:4) %[in{}% na_rm(c(4,NA,3))
#> [1] 3 4

na_false(c(1:4) %in{}% c(4,NA,3))
#> [1] FALSE FALSE TRUE TRUE

[karoliskoncevicius]

hmm to me it looks a bit too complicated.

If NAs are not desirable we can actually switch that particular behaviour to match %in% instead of ==. But then the inconsistency with [== will still remain.

Another alternative is to provide slightly different operator syntax for dealing with NAs differently. Maybe capital letters %IN{}%, like a "strict" %in{}% But not sure if it's intuitive.

[moodymudskipper]

I think I'd rather not multiply by two our whole set of operators, I miss these functions in a CRAN package, but this might not be the place for them.

[karoliskoncevicius]

Yup, agreed. What is your opinion about the other option - breaking consistency with == just for NA values?

[moodymudskipper]

I'm not sure about it, it's easy to remove NAs or transform them, if they're gone by default you won't get them back.

unrelated FYI : https://github.com/rstudio/rstudio/issues/5767

[moodymudskipper]

I don't completely dislike the capital letter idea though! We can think about it as we use the package.

[karoliskoncevicius]

Yup I agree about not getting NA values back if we get rid of it. Very good point.

About rstudio issue - great catch. I do not use R-studio, so do not have this particular problem. But it would be cumbersome for potential users of the package.