Re: Non-decimal positional digits; was: Defined Private Use

• Previous message: Mark E. Shoulson: "Re: Defined Private Use was: SSP default ignorable characters"
• In reply to: Antoine Leca: "Re: Non-decimal positional digits; was: Defined Private Use"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
• Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

Antoine Leca scripsit:

> By the way, if the Tengwar system is only duodecimal (as I think),
> *all* the digits should then be given class No, none to Nd.

Not so; the same digits 0-9 can be used for decimal or duodecimal numbers.

-- 
"Clear?  Huh!  Why a four-year-old child        John Cowan
could understand this report.  Run out          jcowan@reutershealth.com
and find me a four-year-old child.  I           http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
can't make head or tail out of it."             http://www.reutershealth.com
        --Rufus T. Firefly on government reports

• Next message: Mark E. Shoulson: "Re: New contribution"
• Previous message: Mark E. Shoulson: "Re: Defined Private Use was: SSP default ignorable characters"
• In reply to: Antoine Leca: "Re: Non-decimal positional digits; was: Defined Private Use"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
• Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Apr 28 2004 - 22:51:21 EDT