[04:23:14] Thank you! Happy to be a part of the group. (re @u99of9: Welcome Agamya) [06:55:26] I'm getting errors on Z21930 when it is used as a read function, but also in "run this function". Even though the tests of the same input pass. [07:32:21] Z21931 is now failing for all tests, also in edit mode. (re @u99of9: I'm getting errors on Z21930 when it is used as a read function, but also in "run this function". Even though the tests of the s...) [08:59:15] Now I've resolved nudging a couple of implementations (re @u99of9: I'm getting errors on Z21930 when it is used as a read function, but also in "run this function". Even though the tests of the s...) [09:12:53] It looks like we’ll need to configure by language to resolve ambiguous 9,999 and 9.999. [11:21:33] Correct. I haven't been bothered because it would be a weird way to enter a fraction. But now that rationals are used in quantities, it's probably worth it soon. (re @Al: It looks like we’ll need to configure by language to resolve ambiguous 9,999 and 9.999.) [11:22:38] Weird in English, but very natural in Russian 🤷🏻‍♂️ (re @u99of9: Correct. I haven't been bothered because it would be a weird way to enter a fraction. But now that rationals are used in quantit...) [11:23:11] Meaning an integer? (re @amire80: Weird in English, but very natural in Russian 🤷🏻‍♂️) [11:23:21] I _think_ that MediaWiki already has some built-in functions for it, but I'm not entirely sure at the moment. [11:24:00] Fractions in Russian and in some other languages are written with commas. (re @u99of9: Meaning an integer?) [11:24:15] It gets it correct if the single . or , should be read as a radix, but not as a separator. (re @u99of9: Meaning an integer?) [11:24:47] So 9.999 means 9/999? (re @amire80: Fractions in Russian and in some other languages are written with commas.) [11:26:16] No, not this kind of fractions. Decimal fractions. (I learned basic math in Russia 35 years ago, so maybe I'm not precise with English terminology?..) [11:26:16] Russian: 9,999 [11:26:17] English: 9.999 (re @u99of9: So 9,999 means 9/999?) [11:26:42] Oh, that's fine, we cover that already. (re @amire80: No, not this kind of fractions. Decimal fractions. (I learned basic math in Russia 35 years ago, so maybe I'm not precise with E...) [11:27:04] Yes, it’s just whole numbers that cause difficulties, especially when a rational number function is embedded and doesn’t explain that the string is a fraction. (re @u99of9: It gets it correct if the single . or , should be read as a radix, but not as a separator.) [11:30:07] Re: English terminology I'd call these "decimals" (re @amire80: Fractions in Russian and in some other languages are written with commas.) [11:36:20] I think they’re strictly “improper decimal fractions”, or just “decimal fractions” as a general rule. (re @u99of9: Re: English terminology I'd call these "decimals", or "decimal representations of fractions") [19:20:07] 🎉 Z27951 👏 Thanks, @vrandecic 🙏 [20:35:41] I’ve implemented Z27953 with a configuration but I’m reluctant to virtually duplicate Z19948 (currently failing with spurious Z504). Maybe we could have a new Z19943 that allows a specified radix parameter that would be set by the calling function? (re @u99of9: Correct. I haven't been bothered because it would be a weird way to enter a fraction. But now that rationals are [20:35:41] used in quantit...) [20:45:52] Z21930 is failing “always” [20:53:57] Now even other functions like Z14304 are failing (re @Al: Z21930 is failing “always”) [20:54:26] Z19933 and Z19943 both fail with Z504 (re @Al: Z21930 is failing “always”) [20:56:02] This type for now doesn't work (given the error messages for example with Z27957 and Z27954 it might be because there are more that 100 possible values) (re @wikilinksbot: Z27951 – Chemical element) [20:57:03] I think this is a more sitewise problem (re @Al: Z19933 and Z19943 both fail with Z504) [21:00:40] It’s nice to see an informative error message 👍 (re @dvd_ccc27919: This type for now doesn't work (given the error messages for example with Z27957 and Z27954 it might be because there are more t...) [21:04:12] Yes. It affects reading integers in embedded functions too. (re @dvd_ccc27919: I think this is a more sitewise problem) [21:04:40] It is a sitewise problem. Apparently now every function on Wikifunctions doesn't work, yelding Z504 (except the cached results) (re @dvd_ccc27919: I think this is a more sitewise problem) [21:06:36] Not every function (for example, string-only functions work) (re @dvd_ccc27919: It is a sitewise problem. Apparently now every function on Wikifunctions doesn't work, yelding Z504 (except the cached results)) [21:07:21] Yes. Booleans too (re @dvd_ccc27919: Not every function (for example, string-only functions work)) [21:08:53] Builtins look okay too. (re @dvd_ccc27919: Not every function (for example, string-only functions work)) [21:13:13] Looks like it’s numerics. Float64 also fails, but months are okay. (re @dvd_ccc27919: Not every function (for example, string-only functions work)) [21:17:05] So… Natural numbers and everything that depends on them? Integers, rational numbers, dates, float64s, bytes, Unicode code point… [21:18:04] Dates, times... (re @Al: So… Natural numbers and everything that depends on them? Integers, rational numbers, dates, float64s, bytes, Unicode code point…) [21:18:23] I reported that to the team, hopefully someone will take a look at it soon [21:19:29] I was just thinking of mentioning you! Shall I update [[Wikifunctions:Status]]? (re @Sannita: I reported that to the team, hopefully someone will take a look at it soon) [21:28:40] Preferably not [21:29:32] I'm actually going to bed, it's 11:30 PM here, but someone in the American part of the team should be still awake [21:29:43] Worst case scenario, it gets done tomorrow [21:30:30] Thanks. I see James is active. Good night! (re @Sannita: Worst case scenario, it gets done tomorrow) [22:41:04] Yes I've been concerned since I heard that lists are defined recursively. I still don't really understand why they couldn't be flat. (re @dvd_ccc27919: This type for now doesn't work (given the error messages for example with Z27957 and Z27954 it might be because there are more t...) [22:50:32] T403671 (re @Al: I was just thinking of mentioning you! Shall I update [[Wikifunctions:Status]]?) [23:36:46] I don’t know what this problem turned out to be, but I don’t think it was the length of the list (it’s currently failing with a Z504). (re @u99of9: I didn't expect to hit a recursion limit here Z23468 (the composition for the dog test, although it shows differently from withi...) [23:39:14] If a list longer than 100 items is defined recursively, isn't it natural that it will hit a recursion limit of 100? (re @Al: I don’t know what this problem turned out to be, but I don’t think it was the length of the list (it’s currently failing with a ...) [23:46:27] I can only say, “it depends”. I disproved the most naive hypothesis in April by generating a list of more than 200 items (as the Wikidata fetches must also do for labels). My guess is that the recursion limit is reached when failing to handle some error, not in happier times. But that is definitely just a guess. 🎃 (re @u99of9: If a list longer than 100 items is defined [23:46:27] rec [23:46:28] ursively, isn't it natural that it will hit a recursion limit of 100?)