-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 207
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Wrong 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
.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: