Sorry about the blank reply. Itchy trigger finger.
On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Ken Whistler <kenwhistler_at_att.net> wrote:
>
> On 10/6/2016 12:44 PM, Garth Wallace wrote:
>
> Some representatives of the WFCC have proposed alternate arrangements that
> assume there will be a need for bitwise operations to covert between the
> existing chess symbols in the Miscellaneous Symbols block and related
> symbols in the new block. I don't see the need but maybe I'm missing
> something.
>
>
> I don't think you are missing anything. Bitwise operations would certainly
> *not* be needed in a case like this. Small lookup and mapping tables
> would suffice.
>
> --Ken
>
>
Thank you.
Just to be clear, this is the proposed allocation as it stands:
http://i556.photobucket.com/albums/ss7/Garth_Wallace/proposed%20characters_zps81m0frvl.png
That arrangement is the result of some discussion with a representative of
the WFCC.
And here are the alternatives that another WFCC representative recently
proposed and that prompted my question:
http://i556.photobucket.com/albums/ss7/Garth_Wallace/wfcc%20alternatives_zpstdvfgcf2.png
Received on Sat Oct 08 2016 - 01:30:46 CDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sat Oct 08 2016 - 01:30:47 CDT
