Re: Hexadecimal digits?

From: Mark E. Shoulson (
Date: Tue Nov 11 2003 - 08:55:31 EST

  • Next message: Philippe Verdy: "Re: Hexadecimal digits?"

    Jill Ramonsky wrote:

    > ...the original issue of _whether or not there should exist Unicode
    > characters for which IsDigit() returns true and for which
    > GetDigitValue() returns values in the range ten to fifteen_.

    If/when Tengwar gets coded, it will have digits for 10 and 11, as it
    uses base-12.

    I imagine the Dozenal Society would also be grateful for 10 and 11
    digits; they've been using X and E, or more recently * and #, for such
    things. I would say that to the extent that all this is a good idea, we
    shouldn't code lots of different ones (A,B for the computer crowd, X,E
    for the Dozenal crowd); let glyph-variants handle it.

    I might also point out 2160-216F, which could be considered something of
    a step in this direction, with appropriately tailored software.

    (as an oddball addition: if the maximum base we're really trying to
    support is 16, it might be handy to have a "16" digit as well, even
    though base 16 doesn't use it. Since, as Jill says, a digit is a digit,
    this would enable us to specify the base used for another number
    *unambiguously* all the way up to 16. It's something I think is missing
    in Lojban, which has digit-words through 15; a 16 would have been helpful.)


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Nov 11 2003 - 09:34:29 EST