[00:09:09] David please can you add Z19267 as the equality functions for Z6092? [00:22:13] And also add Z23372 as the equality functions for Z6094 (re @u99of9: David please can you add Z19267 as the equality functions for Z6092?) [00:56:34] And also Z19084 as the equality functions for Z4. Al GrounderUK can you check this one is right? (re @u99of9: And also add Z23372 as the equality functions for Z6094) [01:09:32] Also Al GrounderUK , I read the deprecation talk at Z17464. It mentioned that the Z9 type is not fully specified. Is that still an obstacle to writing a simple reference equality function? [01:15:11] It’s not 100% because we can’t handle optional keys. I can’t think of a way to improve it because code implementations don’t get the full complement of keys even when they’re present and compositions… well, I suppose reifications might work 🤔 (re @u99of9: And also Z19084 as the equality functions for Z4. Al GrounderUK can you check this one is right?) [01:17:19] And also Z23379 as the equality function for Z61. (re @u99of9: And also Z19084 as the equality functions for Z4. Al GrounderUK can you check this one is right?) [01:17:53] We should be able to use Z22764, but I might not approve 😉 (re @u99of9: Also Al GrounderUK , I read the deprecation talk at Z17464. It mentioned that the Z9 type is not fully specified. Is that still ...) [01:19:25] I don't understand, so I'll leave this one to you. (re @Al: It’s not 100% because we can’t handle optional keys. I can’t think of a way to improve it because code implementations don’t get...) [01:26:09] For Z1 should we attach Z13052 or Z18683 or leave it off and let people tend for themselves? [01:33:51] No, reification still times out in equality, so… maybe I’ll sleep on it. (re @u99of9: I don't understand, so I'll leave this one to you.) [01:39:03] Funnily enough, Z23360 is the functional equivalent of people fending for themselves, because they can select a contextually correct equality function. But maybe Z13052 is the more usable option. (re @u99of9: For Z1 should we attach Z13052 or Z18683 or leave it off and let people tend for themselves?) [01:48:54] And also Z19312 as the equality function for Z12 (re @u99of9: And also Z23379 as the equality function for Z61.) [01:51:24] Yes I think object returns are more often than others going to justify a custom result validation. But on balance it would still be more convenient to be offered a simple default. (re @Al: Funnily enough, Z23360 is the functional equivalent of people fending for themselves, because they can select a contextually cor...) [01:53:46] Z13052 is fine by me. (re @u99of9: Yes I think object returns are more often than others going to justify a custom result validation. But on balance it would still...) [02:15:47] Okay so David please can you add Z13052 as the equality function for Z1? (re @Al: Z13052 is fine by me.) [11:01:34] No… That’s nonsense, sorry! (re @Al: We should be able to use Z22764, but I might not approve 😉) [13:09:40] I object to this (re @u99of9: Okay so David please can you add Z13052 as the equality function for Z1?) [13:10:16] On the grounds that equality of different types behaves differently [13:11:02] When making most tests you know what the output object will look like [13:12:37] References aren't allowed in the frontend, an equality is worthless (re @u99of9: Also Al GrounderUK , I read the deprecation talk at Z17464. It mentioned that the Z9 type is not fully specified. Is that still ...) [13:12:59] Literal references* [13:13:08] That's an oxymoron [14:49:16] Hey Feeglgeef, just found Z20462 and Z20463. Could you tell if it has any use or was just testing. Will request at rfd if you are fine/do not mind. Thanks! [16:41:05] It does have use (re @bunnypranav: Hey Feeglgeef, just found Z20462 and Z20463. Could you tell if it has any use or was just testing. Will request at rfd if you ar...) [16:41:34] Actually nvm [16:41:40] You can delete it [19:04:51] Okay, I've added the requested equality functions for Z6092, Z6094, Z61, and Z12. I'm holding off, for now, on Z1 and Z4, to see if there's any further discussion here regarding Z1 and also if the team wants to raise any points about these 2 (I've brought it to their attention). Thanks again to you, and other folks who have been involved, for your work on these! (re@u99 [19:04:51] of9: An [19:04:52] d also Z19312 as the equality function for Z12)