tim wrote:
> > But really, I don't suspect that anyone is going to do serious
> > character to number conversion on these esoteric characters. Plain
> > old digits will do just as they always have ...
>
> Which is why I have to wonder whether there's *any* value in exposing the
> numeric-value property beyond regular old digits.
the unicode database has three fields dealing with the numeric
value: decimal digit value (integer), digit value (integer), and
numeric value (integer *or* rational):
"This is a numeric field. If the character has the numeric
property, as specified in Chapter 4 of the Unicode Standard,
the value of that character is represented with an integer or
rational number in this field."
here's today's proposal: let's claim that it's a bug to return a float
from "numeric", and change it to return a string instead.
(this will match "decomposition", which is also "broken" -- it really
should return a tag followed by a sequence of unicode characters).
</F>
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4