From @nto|ne@|@br| @end|ng |rom gm@||@com  Thu Mar  2 18:23:12 2023
From: @nto|ne@|@br| @end|ng |rom gm@||@com (Antoine Fabri)
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2023 18:23:12 +0100
Subject: [Rd] confusing all.equal output
In-Reply-To: <0C58DB1A-E9CC-4CDC-9A06-9BCD3303409A@gmail.com>
References: <CAEKh8uj-pp63WGDvG7YtsMqrMnqHUcWq0Ex2ObPxOPzEh3hLxQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <0C58DB1A-E9CC-4CDC-9A06-9BCD3303409A@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAEKh8ugAEttrCqNjgRDny9DQvQdfOpSqvbsyYNunE6d6+y7q8g@mail.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]]



[Rd] confusing all.equal output
Antoine Fabri