bug#15809: [External] : Re: bug#15809: 24.3.50; wrong defcustom type for `suggest-key-bindings'

[Drew Adams]

> > (define-widget 'natnum 'restricted-sexp
> >   "A nonnegative integer."
> >   :tag "Integer (positive)"
> 
> Sorry, but this is just wrong. 0 is not a positive integer. If nobody
> fixes this then I will.

100% agreement that "positive" is wrong - it does
not apply to 0.

> And regarding whether natural numbers include zero, the answer is that
> yes, they do. The notion that they don't is antiquated; today 0 is
> assumed to be included by default unless otherwise stated or hinted in
> the notation. Let's not spread some silly 19th century bickering about
> something that was settled long ago.

It's not about what is current or appropriate in
math etc.  It's about providing doc that leaves
less room for confusion.  And yes, "natural number"
is understood differently by different people,
unfortunately.  It's not hard to be clear, here.
"Nonnegative integer" is short, clear, unambiguous.