Re: Hexadecimal digits

From: Luke-Jr (
Date: Wed Jun 09 2010 - 15:48:32 CDT

  • Next message: Andrew West: "Re: Hexadecimal digits"

    On Wednesday 09 June 2010 03:34:34 pm Hans Aberg wrote:
    > 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.

    "I have 20 cans." How do you convey the base from that context?

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jun 09 2010 - 15:56:52 CDT