not choose well,
>> letting a programmer come up with whatever they feel like
>> is generally worse.
>>
>> Yes, in their microcosm centered on a dozen lines of
>> code, "current" and "target" may have meaning. But are
>
d
> "target" may have meaning. But are they the intended user of the product?
>
> -Original Message-----
> From: R-devel On Behalf Of Antoine Fabri
> Sent: Thursday, March 2, 2023 12:23 PM
> To: peter dalgaard
> Cc: R-devel
> Subject: Re: [Rd] confusing al
n Behalf Of Antoine Fabri
Sent: Thursday, March 2, 2023 12:23 PM
To: peter dalgaard
Cc: R-devel
Subject: Re: [Rd] confusing all.equal output
Good points. I don't mind the terminology since target and current are the
names of the arguments. As the function is already designed to stop at
Good points. I don't mind the terminology since target and current are the
names of the arguments. As the function is already designed to stop at the
first failing check we might not need to enumerate or count the mismatches,
instead we could have "`NA` found in `target` but not in `current` at
pos
Yes... Also, of course, the sentence after colon does not the describe the
cause of the mismatch, e.g.
> all.equal(c(1,NA,NA), c(NA,NA,3))
[1] "'is.NA' value mismatch: 2 in current 2 in target"
could be confusing.
Perhaps "is.na() mismatch (2 positions)", with the count calculated as
sum(is.n
dear r-devel,
This has probably been forever like this but is this satisfying ?
all.equal(c(1,NA,NA), c(1,NA,3))
#> [1] "'is.NA' value mismatch: 1 in current 2 in target"
is.NA() doesn't exist (is.na() does), and is.na() is never 1 or 2.
In this example it's obvious that we're counting missing
