Is there any difference between testing isTRUE(all.equal(x, y))
and identical(x, y)
?
The help page says:
Don\'t use
all.equal
tests for near equality, while identical
is more exact (e.g. it has no tolerance for differences, and it compares storage type). From ?identical:
The function ‘all.equal’ is also sometimes used to test equality this way, but was intended for something different: it allows for small differences in numeric results.
And one reason you would wrap all.equal
in isTRUE
is because all.equal
will report differences rather than simply return FALSE
.
In addition to differences in numerical tolerance and comparison of storage mode, unlike all.equal()
, identical
also tests equality of associated environments. Regular objects in R don't normally have associated environments -- they are most commonly associated with function
and formula
(and terms
) objects. But to illustrate, I'll give two trivial objects different (newly created) environments:
x <- 2; environment(x) <- new.env()
y <- 2; environment(y) <- new.env()
all.equal(x,y) ## TRUE
identical(x,y) ## FALSE
There is an ignore.environment
argument:
ignore.environment: logical indicating if their environments should be ignored when comparing closures.
but since it is only applied when comparing closures (i.e. functions), it doesn't make a difference in this case - nor will it make a difference when comparing formulae or terms objects.
identical
is fussier. For example:
> identical(as.double(8), as.integer(8))
[1] FALSE
> all.equal(as.double(8), as.integer(8))
[1] TRUE
> as.double(8) == as.integer(8)
[1] TRUE