Only joyful numbers?

[jrmadsen67]

when you say, "positive" you're referring to numbers that bring me joy, right?

so I can leave out ones like 17?

[AndrewFeeney]

If we were to adopt this approach, it would require a change to the contribution guidelines to drop the 'consecutive' requirement. Personally I feel that this would significantly reduce the utility of this library, and begs other questions.

As of right now, we're not up to 17 yet, so I propose we defer any such decisions until then. The next number which will be accepted is 2.

[AndrewFeeney]

Just reopening this as we've received a pull request that includes the number 17. Personally I'm in favour of continuing with the consecutive approach, since joyfulness is subjective. I don't personally have any problems with 17 whereas 43 can go eat rocks as far as I'm concerned.

[ellipsisComma]

For me the advantage of this library is definitely that it's fully consecutive—when I import it, allPositiveIntegersInAscendingOrder[7] always returns 8, allPositiveIntegersInAscendingOrder[allPositiveIntegersInAscendingOrder[7]] always returns 9, etc. It makes a complicated situation very simple.

[AndrewFeeney]

I think that's a great point. It really does help when using this library if we can assume that we can always find the nth integer by simply by looking up allPositiveIntegersInAscendingOrder[n - 1]. I think that settles it.