[00:23:00] Functioneer day 1: all tests now pass on Z13091 😎 (re @lucaswerkmeister: I didn’t realize you’re not a functioneer – if you want to try editing the function I can disconnect it?) [00:30:37] Another weird one IMO is Z13053 where I can't see anything I've done wrong. When I read the summary of the algorithm without expanding the dropdowns, it lists the arguments inside quotes as though they were strings. This could just be a display issue, but I'm also not sure why the composition isn't working. [00:31:10] that’s amazing, thank you! (re @Al: Functioneer day 1: all tests now pass on Z13091 😎) [00:31:37] (I promise I was planning to come back to the function and improve it – I kept the chat unread to remind myself – but it probably wasn’t going to happen before the weekend 😅) [00:32:58] You should take a look at it: half as long and twice as successful! 😉 [00:40:41] Looks great. I expect much of it will also help at Z11390 (re @Al: You should take a look at it: half as long and twice as successful! 😉) [01:05:06] That’s trickier because there’s no obvious rule for selecting the appropriate suffix. It’s probably better to have a general suffixing function, but I’ll try adapting the -ing one it for -ed first. [01:54:18] Newsletter 143: Fix-it week; Function of the Week: duplicate string - https://www.wikifunctions.org/wiki/Wikifunctions:Status_updates/2024-02-14 [02:31:14] Z13177 seems to be working correctly but has only three tests at the moment. I’ll add some more tomorrow but I’m pretty sure we can just drop the logic as-is into the -er section of Z11390 (and lose the -ier variant). (re @Toby: Looks great. I expect much of it will also help at Z11390) [02:37:06] Regarding displaying the empty string with the red (Enter string) text. What do people think about replacing that with a hardcoded reference to the empty string object Z11853, as I have done here: Z10009 (and many other places). Personally I think it looks nicer, but perhaps it adds a layer of complexity? (re @vrandecic: Newsletter 143: Fix-it week; Function of the Week: duplicat [02:37:07] e string - https://www.wikifunctions.org/wiki/Wikifunctions:Status_up...) [05:07:00] I've been experimenting with starting categories on talk pages today. Here is one for Function of the week: https://www.wikifunctions.org/wiki/Category:Function_of_the_week where at each talk page you can find a link to its write-up. (re @vrandecic: Newsletter 143: Fix-it week; Function of the Week: duplicate string - https://www.wikifunctions.org/wiki/Wikifunctions:Status_up...) [13:51:52] 5430 [15:50:55] Isn't that resolved now with this week's fix? I mean, not a bad idea, but just wondering if it still happens at all (re @Toby: Regarding displaying the empty string with the red (Enter string) text. What do people think about replacing that with a hardcod...) [15:51:08] Thank you! (re @Toby: I've been experimenting with starting categories on talk pages today. Here is one for Function of the week: https://www.wikifunc...) [17:39:09] I have a fairly comprehensive list of around 150 irregular English verbs. I was thinking of maybe creating a Python function to return True if a form is irregular. I could then create a composition that would avoid returning incorrect forms from Z13177. I’m inclined to avoid returning the correct irregular form, but I’m not sure what I would return. Any thoughts? [18:33:30] I’ve deployed Z13177 in a new composition for Z11795 for a generic -er form that would also work for a Z11390 composition. (re @Toby: Looks great. I expect much of it will also help at Z11390) [18:43:56] Sounds good (re @Al: I have a fairly comprehensive list of around 150 irregular English verbs. I was thinking of maybe creating a Python function to ...) [21:15:03] Thanks. Z13206. (re @Nicolas: Sounds good) [23:17:22] Z13213 (re @Nicolas: Sounds good) [23:32:38] How should we handle capitalisation in morphemes? Do we need functions to do their own tests on the input capitalisation, or should we concentrate on getting the lowercase versions right then either sanitising the input or wrapping the function with a case checker. Z13217 for example. [23:43:28] For checking whether a verb is irregular, I converted to lower case, just for the test but I didn’t think to match the case of the input… lower case and an initial capital are fine, but we could match all upper case too, I suppose 🤷‍♂️ (re @Toby: How should we handle capitalisation in morphemes? Do we need functions to do their own tests on the input capitalisation, or sho...) [23:56:58] I’ve changed Z13179 to support capitalized inputs. It will now return TRied for TRY. (re @Toby: How should we handle capitalisation in morphemes? Do we need functions to do their own tests on the input capitalisation, or sho...)