[15:59:22] There was some talk in the project updates about updating the appearance of the "About" box on the function pages. Was it actually deployed, or is it still in the design or development stage? [16:28:44] It has certainly changed šŸ¤·ā€ā™‚ļø (re @amire80: There was some talk in the project updates about updating the appearance of the "About" box on the function pages. Was it actual...) [16:33:44] Thanks. This means that the bugs that I've just reported about it are (probably) not about the old code. [17:01:44] New or old, they look like current bugs that will not fix themselves šŸ˜Ž (re @amire80: Thanks. This means that the bugs that I've just reported about it are (probably) not about the old code.) [18:45:47] My understanding is barely at the level of high school. Why does "factorial" (Z13667) has the aliases A000142, M1675, and N0659? [18:46:37] https://oeis.org/A000142 is a list of factorials of integers [18:46:37] (the other two aliases are from earlier versions of the OEIS) (re @amire80: My understanding of mathematics is barely at the level of high school. Why does "factorial" (Z13667) has the aliases A000142, M1...) [19:12:48] I think I already asked this once, but I don't recall getting a clear answer: [19:12:48] When I edit the About box of a function, I see "labels", "short descriptions", "aliases" fields. [19:12:59] There can clearly be multiple aliases. [19:13:15] But can there be multiple short descriptions or labels in one language? [19:14:33] No, there cannot be. (re @amire80: But can there be multiple short descriptions or labels in one language?) [19:16:22] That's what I thought. So perhaps the field labels should be renamed to "short description" and "label"? [19:20:23] Perhaps. I believe the field labels come from the object labels. The object labels are plural because they refer to the many descriptions or labels in different languages (zero or one of each in any particular language). (re @amire80: That's what I thought. So perhaps the field labels should be renamed to "short description" and "label"?) [19:21:48] Yes, there can be many labels and descriptions if you take all languages into account. But when you're editing, it's just one language, and there's one description and one label. [19:22:11] Very similar to Wikidata. [19:22:15] Exactly. (re @amire80: Yes, there can be many labels and descriptions if you take all languages into account. But when you're editing, it's just one la...) [19:23:07] And another question. When I'm editing the about box, what am I editing exactly? Is there a common name for all these things? Would it be correct, for example, to call it "function metadata"? Or "function signature"? What's the name exactly? [19:26:26] It's the function label, aliases, description, aliases, inputs, and output. [19:32:06] I donā€™t think there is a formal name for the collective. The text entered is the value in a keyā€“value pair called a Key (Z3), so you might say you are providing values for Keys. (re @amire80: And another question. When I'm editing the about box, what am I editing exactly? Is there a common name for all these things? Wo...) [19:32:27] "Function metadata" would be a good name for that entire set; without the description and aliases "function signature" may be more appropriate [19:39:45] I would be inclined to restrict ā€œfunction signatureā€ to the input and output types and identifiers. The function identifier might also be included, but either way it would only be the signatureā€™s labelization that one would be editing in the About box. (re @mahir256: "Function metadata" would be a good name for that entire set; without the description and aliases [19:39:46] "function [19:39:46] signature" may be mo...) [19:39:50] almost like some of the same people are involved in the design of both ;) (re @amire80: Very similar to Wikidata.) [19:39:58] Iā€™m also very interested in answers to this :) (re @amire80: And another question. When I'm editing the about box, what am I editing exactly? Is there a common name for all these things? Wo...) [19:40:41] And now the big reveal. [19:40:45] agreed, Iā€™d say in normal programming language speak the signature is input + output types (Iā€™d exclude the function identifier, so that you can say that two functions have ā€œthe same signatureā€ or ā€œcompatible signaturesā€ or somesuch) (re @Al: I would be inclined to restrict ā€œfunction signatureā€ to the input and output types and identifiers. The function [19:40:46] identifier migh...) [19:40:49] All those questions I've asked today. [19:40:55] And all those bugs I reported today [19:41:17] are stuff that I stumbled upon making a good screenshot for this Wikipedia article that I'm writing: [19:41:20] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Amire80/Chip_(GUI) [19:41:46] I think I finally got what I wanted, but comments are welcome before I move it to the main namespace. [19:41:52] I like shaving yaks. [19:43:03] Personally, I called them ā€œcartouchesā€ until I heard them being called ā€œchipsā€ (re @amire80: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Amire80/Chip_(GUI)) [19:43:42] Google is trying to popularize the name "chip" [19:43:59] I don't necessarily love it, but it _seems_ to be the most popular one. [19:44:31] I haven't heard the word "cartouche" to describe this thing, but I do like it! I wish I had a reliable source to add to the (draft) article. [19:49:50] Yes, the only source was my brain, Iā€™m afraid. (re @amire80: I haven't heard the word "cartouche" to describe this thing, but I do like it! I wish I had a reliable source to add to the (dra...) [21:22:03] I noticed that email addresses have been converted too, so perhaps t could be "In Google Docs, links to another document _or user_ may be automatically converted to a chip." (re @amire80: I think I finally got what I wanted, but comments are welcome before I move it to the main namespace.)