Re: Hexadecimal digits

From: Hans Aberg (
Date: Wed Jun 09 2010 - 15:34:34 CDT

  • Next message: Luke-Jr: "Re: Hexadecimal digits"

    On 9 Jun 2010, at 19:55, John H. Jenkins wrote:

    > Unicode encodes characters, not glyphs. In order to separately
    > encode a hexadecimal-2 separately from an decimal-2, you'd either
    > have to show either that the two are, in fact, inherently different
    > characters (in which case you'd better be prepared to separately
    > encode the octal-2 and the duodecimal-2 et al.), or you'd have to
    > two that widespread existing practice treats them as distinct or at
    > least draws them distinctly.

    Mathematically, they are semantically the same. And if they look the
    same, one still cannot convey that contextual information of the base.
    Some numbers of different bases will be homographs, but in language,
    one lets the context convey what is meant.

    The use of prefixes or suffixes to convey the base only serves to make
    a context independent representation of the number. It simplifies a
    traditional lexer-parser implementation of computer languages, as one
    can let the lexer parse it.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jun 09 2010 - 15:36:19 CDT