From: Patrick Andries (Patrick.Andries@xcential.com)
Date: Tue Dec 30 2003 - 09:26:11 EST
----- Message d'origine -----
De: "Mirek" <midge@wp.pl>
> Hello,
>
> I am not sure if it is the proper place to discuss the case if missing
> characters, but haven't found better place.
>
> I tried to find out two characters in unicode and encountered the
> following problem. There are two characters for logical EXISTS and FOR
> ALL signs.
> There exists "old notation" that is in unicode (exist =
> mirrored E, for all = inverted A)
U+2200
U+2203
>and yet new notation (exist = the character similar to logical OR
OPERATOR but bigger, and for all =
> similar to logical AND OPERATOR, but bigger).
You mean similar to U+22C0 and U+22C1 ?
Do you have any reference as to the modernity of this V-like notation ?
May I add that, at first sight, I find this a very strange idea since
well-known and distinct signs would have been replaced by signs dangerously
close to other well-known ones.
> IMHO it's strange that unicode does not cover both types of notations, or
maybe I missed something.
I don't know, but how about considering them as glyph variants ?
P. A.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Dec 30 2003 - 10:15:46 EST