That is only because the special coding rules for Roman numerals weren't added.
It still is a wrong way to think about Nl. On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 12:59 PM JJ Merelo <jjmer...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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