[02:14:26] Meaty update, thanks! Thanks also for your kind forbearance of our apply experimentation. (Credit for the initial pseudocode to TomT0m on the thread you linked.) I did expect you to find it useful sometime sooner or later, but certainly didn't guess you would pitch it as FOTW! Your type that allows languages to control function selection now also cracks open the opportunity for [02:14:27] meta-morphemes. My first attempt at an example, although not working just yet: Z14391. (re @vrandecic: Newsletter 148: Towards internationalizing numbers [02:14:29] [02:14:30] https://www.wikifunctions.org/wiki/Wikifunctions:Status_updates/2024-03-21) [04:01:10] Was the orchestration time limit extended? : https://tools-static.wmflabs.org/bridgebot/a4a3e540/file_58943.jpg [04:06:47] If I remember correctly, yes, a little, I think [04:26:07] 🤔 That’s a lot of CPU. All in Orchestration, presumably? (re @Toby: Was the orchestration time limit extended?) [04:38:24] One issue that's been identified in the phab ticket is passing unnecessary labels. The size of some of these new function-selecting objects, if the references (natural languages) are included in the object's data package may scale as L^2 where L is the number of languages completed. Each language can have a name in every other language. (re @Al: 🤔 That’s a lot of CPU. All in [04:38:24] Orchestration, presumably?) [04:46:03] I would have thought all labels are unnecessary in evaluation …unless you’re using Value(s) by Key(s)… 🤔 There should be some optimization there. (re @Toby: One issue that's been identified in the phab ticket is passing unnecessary labels. The size of some of these new function-select...) [07:17:36] Other English speakers are invited to weigh in on the test cases for Z14413. Feel free to add more. Since it will be a bit complex to implement, it would be good to know the criteria first. [10:35:52] Hello [10:36:05] https://t.me/abstract_webapp_bot?start=1193432384 [10:36:06] [10:36:08] 🎁 +2.5k Abstarct as a first-time gift! [12:23:53] I’ll get to it later, but 54.321 is ambiguous (unambiguously, not a Natural number). (re @Toby: Other English speakers are invited to weigh in on the test cases for Z14413. Feel free to add more. Since it will be a bit compl...) [12:30:44] agreed - I think that's checked with Z14421 [18:31:19] 56g