R devel - Apr 2019 - patch to improve matrix conformability error message

With this patch,
> A <- matrix(1, 2, 2)
> B <- matrix(2, 3, 2)
> A %*% B
Error in A %*% B : 
  non-conformable arguments of dimension (2, 2) and (3, 2)
>From 205b591d4d14b5ff667325fb233a6deb08314726 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Joshua Nathaniel Pritikin <jpritikin at pobox.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2019 12:03:58 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] Improve non-conformable arguments error message

---
 src/main/array.c | 9 ++++++---
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/main/array.c b/src/main/array.c
index 4b95e33..cedf627 100644
--- a/src/main/array.c
+++ b/src/main/array.c
@@ -1350,15 +1350,18 @@ SEXP attribute_hidden do_matprod(SEXP call, SEXP op,
SEXP args, SEXP rho)
     if (PRIMVAL(op) == 0) {
 	/* primitive, so use call */
 	if (ncx != nry)
-	    errorcall(call, _("non-conformable arguments"));
+	  errorcall(call, _("non-conformable arguments of dimension (%d, %d) and
(%d, %d)"),
+		    nrx, ncx, nry, ncy);
     }
     else if (PRIMVAL(op) == 1) {
 	if (nrx != nry)
-	    error(_("non-conformable arguments"));
+	  error(_("non-conformable arguments of dimension (%d, %d) and (%d,
%d)"),
+		nrx, ncx, nry, ncy);
     }
     else {
 	if (ncx != ncy)
-	    error(_("non-conformable arguments"));
+	  error(_("non-conformable arguments of dimension (%d, %d) and (%d,
%d)"),
+		nrx, ncx, nry, ncy);
     }
 
     if (isComplex(CAR(args)) || isComplex(CADR(args)))
-- 
2.19.1

I think this is a good idea. Is there a reason why it got no interest?
Slippery slope?

Or maybe others were also just occupied trying to figure out how
Joshua's second message had timestamp earlier than his first message?

On Fri, Apr 05, 2019 at 12:05:36PM -0400, Joshua N Pritikin
wrote:
>With this patch,
>
>> A <- matrix(1, 2, 2)
>> B <- matrix(2, 3, 2)
>> A %*% B
>Error in A %*% B :
>  non-conformable arguments of dimension (2, 2) and (3, 2)
>
>From 205b591d4d14b5ff667325fb233a6deb08314726 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>From: Joshua Nathaniel Pritikin <jpritikin at pobox.com>
>Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2019 12:03:58 -0400
>Subject: [PATCH] Improve non-conformable arguments error message
>
>---
> src/main/array.c | 9 ++++++---
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
>diff --git a/src/main/array.c b/src/main/array.c
>index 4b95e33..cedf627 100644
>--- a/src/main/array.c
>+++ b/src/main/array.c
>@@ -1350,15 +1350,18 @@ SEXP attribute_hidden do_matprod(SEXP call, SEXP op,
SEXP args, SEXP rho)
>     if (PRIMVAL(op) == 0) {
> 	/* primitive, so use call */
> 	if (ncx != nry)
>-	    errorcall(call, _("non-conformable arguments"));
>+	  errorcall(call, _("non-conformable arguments of dimension (%d, %d)
and (%d, %d)"),
>+		    nrx, ncx, nry, ncy);
>     }
>     else if (PRIMVAL(op) == 1) {
> 	if (nrx != nry)
>-	    error(_("non-conformable arguments"));
>+	  error(_("non-conformable arguments of dimension (%d, %d) and (%d,
%d)"),
>+		nrx, ncx, nry, ncy);
>     }
>     else {
> 	if (ncx != ncy)
>-	    error(_("non-conformable arguments"));
>+	  error(_("non-conformable arguments of dimension (%d, %d) and (%d,
%d)"),
>+		nrx, ncx, nry, ncy);
>     }
>
>     if (isComplex(CAR(args)) || isComplex(CADR(args)))
>-- 
>2.19.1
>
>______________________________________________
>R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
>https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>

On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 06:28:46PM -0700, frederik at ofb.net
wrote:
> I think this is a good idea. Is there a reason why it got no interest?
> Slippery slope?
What's the next step? Can it get committed?
> Or maybe others were also just occupied trying to figure out how
> Joshua's second message had timestamp earlier than his first message?
As a new subscriber, I guess my messages got caught in moderation.

-- 
Joshua N. Pritikin, Ph.D.
Virginia Institute for Psychiatric and Behavioral Genetics
Virginia Commonwealth University
PO Box 980126
800 E Leigh St, Biotech One, Suite 1-133
Richmond, VA 23219
http://exuberant-island.surge.sh