On Mon, 10 Nov 2003, Fred L. Drake, Jr. wrote:
>
> Dan Sugalski writes:
> > Digits change for Unicode as well. Plus they get potentially...
> > interesting in some cases, where the digit-ness of a character is arguably
> > contextually driven, but I think that can be ignored. Most of the time, at
> > least.
>
> That depends on how we define "digits" for this purpose. I've always
> thought of the *digits strings as true constants; other may disagree.
Fair enough. The languages that use non-latin alphabets all have
characters for digits, though many allow the use latin digits as well. I
suppose it's a matter of taste as to whether the non-latin digit
characters are treated as true digits or not.
There's also the issue of interpreting numeric constants in
general if you open up the set of digits with Unicode--it could be
considered odd to allow kanji characters that are tagged as digits to not
be considered digits for numeric constants or string->number conversions.
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
dan at sidhe.org have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
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