[Feature Request] Granular exception messages for synthesized beartype validators

Hi, I have been studying this library and noticed that the README suggests one prefer conjoining (“and”-ing) conditions over enumerating them (“,”-separating) them.

from dataclasses import dataclass
from typing import Annotated
from beartype import beartype

@dataclass
class Foo:
    x: int
    y: int

@beartype
def conjoined(
    x, y
) -> Annotated[
    "Foo",
    Is[lambda foo: foo.x + foo.y >= 0] # force separation of lines so only 1 lambda per line
    & Is[lambda foo: foo.x + foo.y <= 10],
]:
    return Foo(x, y)

conjoined(100, 100)

BeartypeCallHintPepReturnException: @beartyped conjoined() return "Foo(x=100, y=100)" violates type hint typing.Annotated[ForwardRef('Foo'), Is[lambda foo: foo.x + foo.y >= 0] & Is[lambda foo: foo.x + foo.y <= 10]], as "Foo(x=100, y=100)" violates validator Is[lambda foo: foo.x + foo.y >= 0] & Is[lambda foo: foo.x + foo.y <= 10].

However, this doesn’t go in and tell me which condition failed (maybe 1, maybe all).

Enumeration seems to do the trick though:

@beartype
def enumerated(
    x, y
) -> Annotated[
    "Foo",
    Is[lambda foo: foo.x + foo.y >= 0],
    Is[lambda foo: foo.x + foo.y <= 10],
]:
    return Foo(x, y)

enumerated(100, 100)

BeartypeCallHintPepReturnException: @beartyped enumerated() return "Foo(x=100, y=100)" violates type hint typing.Annotated[ForwardRef('Foo'), Is[lambda foo: foo.x + foo.y >= 0], Is[lambda foo: foo.x + foo.y <= 10]], as "Foo(x=100, y=100)" violates validator Is[lambda foo: foo.x + foo.y <= 10].

To be it seems enumerated conditions could / should be preferred. Could you explain any arguments in favour of conjunction?

[dycw]

Quick, someone get @leycec some water — he’s on fire!

This is an awesome feature, think beartype 0.10 might be an awesome Christmas present!

[dycw]

Lol good catch. Without my normal office Mon-Fri coffee, I’m not quite as sharp. I can do O(n log n) by myself lol.