[01:10:22] <wm-bb>	 <cvictorovich> What’s 99….99 (re @u99of9: Also the VC function writing may be quite frustrating if Python is still so inconsistent. Here's Z13573 at the moment:)
[01:10:45] <wm-bb>	 <cvictorovich> Looks like 99of9
[01:10:57] <wm-bb>	 <cvictorovich> How long is it (re @cvictorovich: What’s 99….99)
[01:27:17] <wm-bb>	 <u99of9> Quite long, I may not have counted: Z14044 (re @cvictorovich: How long is it)
[01:35:50] <wm-bb>	 <cvictorovich> Does such a test case make sense…
[01:37:37] <wm-bb>	 <cvictorovich> Such a large number doesn’t even make sense in the real world!
[01:44:13] <wm-bb>	 <u99of9> Tests are designed to challenge behaviour of implementations, and extreme cases are often where issues show up. (re @cvictorovich: Does such a test case make sense…)
[01:45:32] <wm-bb>	 <u99of9> Then you can trust it for all "real world" calculations. (re @cvictorovich: Such a large number doesn’t even make sense in the real world!)
[06:28:19] <wm-bb>	 <Jan_ainali> I take this back and apologize. Obviously Q96807071.org would be the perfect domain name. (re @Jan_ainali: I think that what makes most sense with that name is probably, abstract.wikipedia.org.)
[06:58:32] <wm-bb>	 <Npriskorn> First success towards about-function 🥳
[06:58:33] <wm-bb>	 <Npriskorn> Z30060 now works
[11:39:57] <wm-bb>	 <u99of9> Problems persist today. A simple example is at Z29884 where all tests should work. A more complex, but important example is Z28511. (re @wmtelegram_bot: <apine> I don't see evidence of a global Python outage. Is some larger theme emerging around the broken Python implementations? ...)
[12:20:39] <wm-bb>	 <Al> Yes, anecdotally, I’d say it was worse. I was looking at `Z23652, `which passed eventually on the 5th or 6th attempt. (Why is that “experimental” by the way?) (re @u99of9: Problems persist today. A simple example is at Z29884 where all tests should work. A more complex, but important example is Z285...)
[12:28:24] <wm-bb>	 <u99of9> Fair question. The note on Z23630 (for which the former is a helper function) says it wasn't clear to me if it should or would work. (re @Al: Yes, anecdotally, I’d say it was worse. I was looking at Z23652, which passed eventually on the 5th or 6th attempt. (Why is that...)
[12:29:18] <wm-bb>	 <u99of9> I'm fine with untagging it (once we're sure it is actually working !!) (re @u99of9: Fair question. The note on Z23630 (for which the former is a helper function) says it wasn't clear to me if it should or would w...)