**From:** karl williamson (*public@khwilliamson.com*)

**Date:** Tue Jul 27 2010 - 14:07:49 CDT

**Previous message:**CE Whitehead: "Re: ? Reasonable to propose stability policy on numeric type = decimal"**Next in thread:**Kenneth Whistler: "Re: Why does EULER CONSTANT not have math property and PLANCK CONSTANT does?"**Maybe reply:**Kenneth Whistler: "Re: Why does EULER CONSTANT not have math property and PLANCK CONSTANT does?"**Reply:**Alex Plantema: "Re: Why does EULER CONSTANT not have math property and PLANCK CONSTANT does?"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]**Mail actions:**[ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

They are U+2107 and U+210E respectively. Chapter 4 of TUS seems to

indicate that neither should, since they both are operands, and it says

this property applies to mathematical operators.

**Next message:**Kenneth Whistler: "Re: ? Reasonable to propose stability policy on numeric type = decimal"**Previous message:**CE Whitehead: "Re: ? Reasonable to propose stability policy on numeric type = decimal"**Next in thread:**Kenneth Whistler: "Re: Why does EULER CONSTANT not have math property and PLANCK CONSTANT does?"**Maybe reply:**Kenneth Whistler: "Re: Why does EULER CONSTANT not have math property and PLANCK CONSTANT does?"**Reply:**Alex Plantema: "Re: Why does EULER CONSTANT not have math property and PLANCK CONSTANT does?"**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
: Tue Jul 27 2010 - 14:09:27 CDT
*