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 wrote:
>
>
>
> El lun., 14 ene. 2019 a las 18:41, Brad Gilbert ()
> escribió:
>>
>> Nl is not “non-arabic numbers” and it is not
El lun., 14 ene. 2019 a las 18:41, Brad Gilbert ()
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 th
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 f
