[11:08:01] The question is, do we want to relax the Z20/Test case validation so that the function being tested need not be the first function? If so, do we want to restrict this so that, for example, the outermost function must return a Boolean (as well as calling the function being tested somewhere in the composition)? [12:25:47] Hi, [12:25:48] I see that we have a Sandox function: Z10119 [12:25:49] I propose to rename the sandbox implementations to indicate the language used explicitely ("Sandbox-Implementation python 1" instead of just "Sandbox-Implementation", "Sandbox-Implementation python 2" for "Sandbox-Implementation 5"), what do you thik: does is seems a good idea? [12:30:57] Yes. Or just “Sandbox-Python” etc? (re @Nicolas: Hi, [12:30:58] I see that we have a Sandox function: Z10119 [12:31:00] I propose to rename the sandbox implementations to indicate the language used e...) [12:55:36] ah yes, it's simple and better ! (re @Al: Yes. Or just “Sandbox-Python” etc?) [13:50:12] FYI, to gather more comments (and pinging the creators), I left a message on Talk:Z10119 [22:20:54] I'm so glad we're starting natural numbers from 0 [22:26:23] It’s only natural… not like when I was at school 😏 (re @Toby: I'm so glad we're starting natural numbers from 0) [22:27:59] I remember arguing with a teacher about this in primary school 😂 (re @Al: It’s only natural… not like when I was at school 😏) [22:48:53] Always a bold one! 😉 (re @Toby: I remember arguing with a teacher about this in primary school 😂) [23:33:00] Newsletter #145: Type proposal for natural numbers, Recent Changes in the software, Wiki Mentor Africa, Research agenda for AI and knowledge commons, Function of the week: Or -- https://www.wikifunctions.org/wiki/Wikifunctions:Status_updates/2024-02-28 [23:33:37] I am particularly interested in a discussion about the type proposal system itself, and about the natural numbers type. Let us know if it sounds right to you!