You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Recently I was writing tests to read matrix market files written by Scipy, and I made the mistake of writing a diagonal matrix with scipy as "skew-symmetric" and then reading it with sprs. Of course, scipy dutifully wrote it out and marked it as skew-symmetric, and then sprs blew up with BadMatrixMarketFile. All well and correct.
But it's a little opaque, as error-messages go, and I had to puzzle for a while, reading the sprs read_XXXX source code, before I realized what was going wrong (and hence, my mistake). Looking at the source code of read_matrix_market_from_bufread, there are twelve places where the error is raised, and they all have different meanings. I thought: "gee, maybe this error should carry a string with it, so we can write a description of the erroneous input (including maybe line-number?)
Just a thought. It's obviously a low-priority change, but I wonder if maybe it might be useful for users.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Recently I was writing tests to read matrix market files written by Scipy, and I made the mistake of writing a diagonal matrix with scipy as "skew-symmetric" and then reading it with sprs. Of course, scipy dutifully wrote it out and marked it as skew-symmetric, and then sprs blew up with
BadMatrixMarketFile
. All well and correct.But it's a little opaque, as error-messages go, and I had to puzzle for a while, reading the sprs read_XXXX source code, before I realized what was going wrong (and hence, my mistake). Looking at the source code of
read_matrix_market_from_bufread
, there are twelve places where the error is raised, and they all have different meanings. I thought: "gee, maybe this error should carry a string with it, so we can write a description of the erroneous input (including maybe line-number?)Just a thought. It's obviously a low-priority change, but I wonder if maybe it might be useful for users.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: