Two possible options:
- "We don't do
NA, sorry": (Current behavior)
Missings in input data would cause an error or would be dropped (non-silently, to be safe(r)) via na.omit or similar.
Could use an na_rm argument in rpf() and predict.rpf() for that purpose.
- Handle
NAs on the C++ level in whatever tree-ish way is suitable.
See also the Rcpp for everyone chapter on missings.
This is not a pressing issue for now since the implementation can be built and benchmarked under the assumption of complete data, but once we start considering a CRAN release we should at least have an opinion on the matter, I guess.
Two possible options:
NA, sorry": (Current behavior)Missings in input data would cause an error or would be dropped (non-silently, to be safe(r)) via
na.omitor similar.Could use an
na_rmargument inrpf()andpredict.rpf()for that purpose.NAs on the C++ level in whatever tree-ish way is suitable.See also the Rcpp for everyone chapter on missings.
This is not a pressing issue for now since the implementation can be built and benchmarked under the assumption of complete data, but once we start considering a CRAN release we should at least have an opinion on the matter, I guess.