From: Mark E. Shoulson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Nov 11 2003 - 08:55:31 EST
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
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