[Scilab-users] imprecise error messages

[Samuel Gougeon]

Le 07/02/2020 à 02:28, Samuel Gougeon a écrit :
> Le 06/02/2020 à 23:17, Samuel Gougeon a écrit :
>> Le 06/02/2020 à 22:55, Federico Miyara a écrit :
>>>
>>> Dear All,
>>>
>>> I'm trying to use the error messages available at 
>>> https://help.scilab.org/docs/6.0.2/en_US/error_table.html
>>>
>>> However, I cannot find one that describes precisely what is wrong.
>>>
>>> My argument is any scalar, vector, matrix or N-D array of real or 
>>> complex numbers.
>>>
>>> If I use
>>>
>>>    "%s: Argument #%d: Decimal or complex number expected.\n"
>>>
>>> it may convey the idea that only scalars are admissible. I think the 
>>> word "number" jeopardizes the message. It would be better if the 
>>> word "type" were clearly mentioned, for instance "Wrong input type: 
>>> %d expected.\n"
>>
>>
>> Yes, but to me, "input" is useless, since only input types are 
>> testable. In addition, the argument's number must appear. So yes, 
>> something like
>>
>> "%s: Argument #%d: Decimal or complex type expected.\n"
>>
>> would be better.
>>
> Just a little issue, that is not disturbing for me: "decimal" and 
> "complex" are not proper Scilab types.
> From there, we certainly won't go on discussing about "constant", 
> "double" and "number",
> as we recently did here.
> But the term "number" has been proposed for this reason.
> So, may be it is not so bad.
>

In addition, "Real or complex /type/ expected.\n" could be ambiguous.
Indeed, it may as well qualify polynomials, or rationals.
So, all in all, as you see, it's not so easy to find good unambiguous 
and not too technical terms.

We know that the longer and more technically worded error messages are, 
the less read they are.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.scilab.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20200207/ed2a6c62/attachment.htm>