Join GitHub today
GitHub is home to over 50 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together.
Sign upWrong as.period computation with negative intervals #285
Comments
|
This one turned to be tough. Some more examples: start <- ymd('1992-03-01')
(per <- as.period(new_interval(start, end))) # "-2d 0H 0M 0S"
start + per # "1992-02-28 UTC"
start <- ymd('1992-04-01')
(per <- as.period(new_interval(start, end))) # "-1m -4d 0H 0M 0S"
start + per # "1992-02-26 UTC"
start <- ymd('1992-05-01')
(per <- as.period(new_interval(start, end))) # "-2m -3d 0H 0M 0S"
start + per # "1992-02-27 UTC"The main issue is that the computation of In principle there are two ways out. Either make I feel that the first option is cleaner, but will likely result in a lot of existing code. The second option might have less severe consequences, but will result in asymmetric arithmetics which is hard to reason about. More-over, lubridate relies on internal |
|
I have implemented asymmetric arithmetics of positive/negative periods as suggested above. With this fix the following behaves as expected: (per <- as.period(new_interval(start, end))) # "-1d 0H 0M 0S"
start + per # "1992-02-29 UTC"
start <- ymd('1992-04-01')
(per <- as.period(new_interval(start, end))) # "-1m -1d 0H 0M 0S"
start + per # "1992-02-29 UTC"
start <- ymd('1992-05-01')
(per <- as.period(new_interval(start, end))) # "-2m -1d 0H 0M 0S"
start + per #"1992-02-29 UTC"For the new semantics of the negative periods see these tests. |
The result is exactly one day smaller. I expect it's a wrong computing with days in
.int_to_period.