On 13 October 2016 at 08:02, Greg Ewing <greg.ew...@canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
> Mikhail V wrote:
>> Consider unicode table as an array with glyphs.
> You mean like this one?
> http://unicode-table.com/en/
> Unless I've miscounted, that one has the characters
> arranged in rows of 16, so it would be *harder* to
> look up a decimal index in it.
> --
> Greg

Nice point finally, I admit, although quite minor. Where
the data implies such pagings or alignment, the notation
should be (probably) more binary-oriented.
But: you claim to see bit patterns in hex numbers? Then I bet you will
see them much better if you take binary notation (2 symbols) or quaternary
notation (4 symbols), I guarantee. And if you take consistent glyph set for them
also you'll see them twice better, also guarantee 100%.
So not that the decimal is cool,
but hex sucks (too big alphabet) and _the character set_ used for hex
optically sucks.
That is the point.
On the other hand why would unicode glyph table which is to the
biggest part a museum of glyphs would be necesserily
paged in a binary-friendly manner and not in a decimal friendly
manner? But I am not saying it should or not, its quite irrelevant
for this particular case I think.

Python-ideas mailing list
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

Reply via email to