[Rcpp-devel] inconsistent is_na() vs. is.na()

[Krzysztof Sakrejda]

On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 9:36 AM, Dirk Eddelbuettel <edd at debian.org> wrote:
>
> On 2 October 2013 at 21:10, Thomas Tse wrote:
> | For whatever reason R chose NaN to be a subset of NA_real_, so I think it's
> | better for Rcpp (which aims to provide C++ functionality in R) to follow the
> | convention of R ...

It makes sense to stick strictly to R for these convenience functions,
one can already
get at the non-Rcpp values through as<> to check their meaning on the C++ side.
Just please decide on the R or C++ convention and don't mix the two.

Krzysztof