[00:12:14] How do you think it's confusing? (re @u99of9: Why do we have one Type called "Error" and another Type called "Error type"? This seems bound to cause confusion. Z5 Z50.) [00:12:31] That really should be self explanatory no? [00:12:41] An error has an error type [00:12:47] That's about it [00:13:06] But both things are Types. (re @Feeglgeef: An error has an error type) [00:13:49] Well yeah (re @u99of9: But both things are Types.) [00:14:04] An error has a type of error and an error type of type error type [00:14:15] I think we can find a synonym that doesn't overlap [00:15:12] Type and objects are both types (re @u99of9: But both things are Types.) [00:15:18] That's not confusing [00:46:10] What about "error category" or "error classification" or similar [00:47:20] No (re @u99of9: What about "error category" or "error classification" or similar) [00:48:49] "Error type" is basically universal in computing [02:24:40] Why does this fail: Z23325 when this passes: Z23326? [03:18:47] @vrandecic or David please can you attach Z23330 as the equality function for Z6040 [04:20:12] and please can you attach Z22499 as the equality function for Z39 (re @u99of9: @vrandecic or David please can you attach Z23330 as the equality function for Z6040) [04:57:12] and please can you attach Z23338 as the equality function for Z17 (re @u99of9: and please can you attach Z22499 as the equality function for Z39) [08:49:46] Odd, that 🤷‍♂️ It works in Try this function too, but seems to be getting a Z12 with an empty Z11-list within the test itself. That can only be a bug, as far as I can see. (re @u99of9: Why does this fail: Z23325 when this passes: Z23326?) [08:52:07] I've been messing around with some types I don't usually use (here keys), so it could well be something I don't understand. (re @Al: Odd, that 🤷‍♂️ It works in Try this function too, but seems to be getting a Z12 with an empty Z11-list within the test itself. T...) [08:53:33] We have a bunch of types that don't have equality functions or don't have functions for extracting their component keys. [09:07:12] I know… I just haven’t had the time… Did we discuss this before? I was thinking every type should have a formal equality function that is a key by key comparison between the result of the key’s extraction function and a straight call to Z803. Z19911 is an example. (re @u99of9: We have a bunch of types that don't have equality functions or don't have functions for extracti [09:07:12] [09:07:13] ng their component keys.) [09:15:41] I knew we needed to make them for all the newly released types, but hadn't realised how many under the radar types were already under developed. (re @Al: I know… I just haven’t had the time… Did we discuss this before? I was thinking every type should have a formal equality functio...) [09:17:34] It might not matter much, but I tried and failed for Z23341 [09:20:41] And the argument selectors are strange too, but again, we may never need them. (re @u99of9: It might not matter much, but I tried and failed to make a test for Z23341) [09:23:23] Yes… I’ll give that a little think. I don’t think they should be seen outside of a composition. (re @u99of9: And the argument selectors are strange/unworkable too, but again, we may never need them.) [13:36:15] Hello, hello, our Newsletter #193 is out! [13:36:16] * NLG SIG Meeting March 18 [13:36:17] * Recent Changes in the software [13:36:19] * Fresh Functions Weekly: 37 new Functions [13:36:20] You can read the full newsletter at https://www.wikifunctions.org/wiki/Wikifunctions:Status_updates/2025-03-15