Talk:Z10214
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Jdforrester (WMF) in topic Why create this rather than just have people use Z42?
Why create this rather than just have people use Z42?
(And the same with Z10217 / Z41)
It feels like we should have had a community conversation on what to create first for this kind of duplication. Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 19:53, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Jdforrester (WMF): Why not? I guess people can just use Z10249 (Z42) to get this function instead. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 12:42, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
- Sure, but I'm trying to understand what value this has. In what circumstance will someone use it? Why is it more valuable than the existing constant? Are we adding to the abilities for people to do things with this? Etc. :-) Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 00:23, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Jdforrester (WMF): It would help with functions that accept functions. For example, if there was an Z802 but called on two functions instead. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 03:47, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- Ah, so for places where you're using a higher-order-function but want to short-circuit? I see, though it seems a little niche as a use case. Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 12:39, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Jdforrester (WMF): Please know this is not a boolean value; it is a function that accept one boolean value and returns false.--GZWDer (talk) 03:59, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Jdforrester (WMF): It would help with functions that accept functions. For example, if there was an Z802 but called on two functions instead. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 03:47, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- Sure, but I'm trying to understand what value this has. In what circumstance will someone use it? Why is it more valuable than the existing constant? Are we adding to the abilities for people to do things with this? Etc. :-) Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 00:23, 6 August 2023 (UTC)