El lun., 14 ene. 2019 a las 18:41, Brad Gilbert (<b2gi...@gmail.com>) escribió:

> Nl is not “*non-arabic numbers*” and it is not “*numbers that have a > value by themselves*”. > While both seem like correct statements, they are the wrong way to think > about the Nl category. > If either were entirely correct then there wouldn't be a need for No > (Number other). > > *Nl (Number letter)* is for *“Numerals composed of letters or letterlike > symbols (e.g., Roman numerals)”* > (copied from > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:General_Category_(Unicode) ) > > Note that Roman numerals also “*have a positional value*” and can “*be > collated to other numbers to form bigger numbers*”. > No, they don't, at least not in Perl 6: say ⅮⅭ https://gist.github.com/Whateverable/14d4c361c81bc6e784c42a12ca83a6a0 You can try for any other Nl, it just does not. However: say Ⅾ+Ⅽ; OUTPUT: «600» (because they have a numeric value by themselves). Only those with the Nd property can be collated to form any kind of number; these are in number system which are positional and decimal (at least those I've tried): say ߁߃ # OUTPUT: «13» (these are Nko digits) Cheers JJ