R devel - Mar 2023 - confusing all.equal output

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.na(current) != is.na(target)) instead?

Or you could give both off-diagonal elements of the confusion matrix:

"target-only: 1, current-only: 1"

but actually, the whole current/target terminology is somewhat unclear.

-pd
> On 1 Mar 2023, at 13:53 , Antoine Fabri <antoine.fabri at gmail.com>
wrote:
> 
> 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 values, in
a
> general situation I believe it isn't (we might understand it as the
> position of the first NA for instance).
> 
> I would expect something like "'amount of missing values mismatch:
1 in
> current 2 in target"
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Antoine
> 
> 	[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
> 
> ______________________________________________
> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
-- 
Peter Dalgaard, Professor,
Center for Statistics, Copenhagen Business School
Solbjerg Plads 3, 2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark
Phone: (+45)38153501
Office: A 4.23
Email: pd.mes at cbs.dk  Priv: PDalgd at gmail.com

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
position <FIRST_MISMATCH>"

	[[alternative HTML version deleted]]