Why does EULER CONSTANT not have math property and PLANCK CONSTANT does?

From: karl williamson (public@khwilliamson.com)
Date: Tue Jul 27 2010 - 14:07:49 CDT

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 ]

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