RE: [lojban] (from lojban-beginners) pi'e

2001-09-22 Thread Edward Cherlin
We generally believe that the mathematicians led by Leonardo Fibonacci won out over the Old Guard in replacing Roman numerals with Hindu-Arabic numerals, but the victory was long drawn out, and is still incomplete. Businesses continued to use Roman numerals for several centuries (because

Re: 3rd-party cross-platform UTF-8 support

2001-09-22 Thread Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk
Thu, 20 Sep 2001 12:46:49 -0700 (PDT), Kenneth Whistler [EMAIL PROTECTED] pisze: If you are expecting better performance from a library that takes UTF-8 API's and then does all its internal processing in UTF-8 *without* converting to UTF-16, then I think you are mistaken. UTF-8 is a bad form

Re: 3rd-party cross-platform UTF-8 support

2001-09-22 Thread Michael \(michka\) Kaplan
From: "Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Why would UTF-16 be easier for internal processing than UTF-8? Both are variable-length encodings. Good straw man! Working with UTF-16 is immensely easier than working with UTF-8. As I am am sure you know! :-) MichKa Michael Kaplan

RE: [lojban] (from lojban-beginners) pi'e

2001-09-22 Thread Carl W. Brown
Edward, Typewriters, computer keyboards, and school recitations still put 0 after 9 rather than before 1. Such is Human Stupidity. This is logical. Originally typewrites had no 1 or 0. You code use the letters l and O. They look the same so that is good enough until computers came along and

Re: [lojban] (from lojban-beginners) pi'e

2001-09-22 Thread DougEwell2
In a message dated 2001-09-22 0:02:39 Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Businesses continued to use Roman numerals for several centuries (because addition and subtraction is easier in Roman numerals, I would be fascinated to see some sort of evidence that addition and

Developing UTF-8 support

2001-09-22 Thread Carl W. Brown
When developing xIUA, I designed UTF-8 support to be used two different ways. One as a form of Unicode and the other as yet another code page. In either case the two are handled with few exceptions in the same manor. The only difference it when you want to convert from UTF-8 to an underlying

RE: [lojban] (from lojban-beginners) pi'e

2001-09-22 Thread Charlie Ruland
Businesses continued to use Roman numerals for several centuries (because addition and subtraction is easier in Roman numerals, I would be fascinated to see some sort of evidence that addition and subtraction is easier in Roman numerals than in Hindu-Arabic (European) numerals.

Re: Any tools to convert HTML unicode to JAVA unicode

2001-09-22 Thread Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk
Wed, 19 Sep 2001 03:47:59 -0700 (PDT), MindTerm [EMAIL PROTECTED] pisze: I would like to ask any tools to convert HTML unicode ( e.g. # n n n n ) to JAVA unicode ( e.g. \u n n n n ) ? Here is a Perl program which does this: perl -pe 'BEGIN {sub java ($) {sprintf "\\u%04x", $_[0]}}

[OT] Roman numeral arithmetic (was: Re: [lojban] (from lojban-beginners) pi'e)

2001-09-22 Thread DougEwell2
In a message dated 2001-09-22 11:35:16 Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I would be fascinated to see some sort of evidence that addition and subtraction is easier in Roman numerals than in Hindu-Arabic (European) numerals. I + I = II X + X = XX X + X + X = XXX C +

Re: [OT] Roman numeral arithmetic (was: Re: [lojban] (from lojban-beginners) pi'e)

2001-09-22 Thread James Kass
Doug Ewell wrote: I would be fascinated to see some sort of evidence that addition and subtraction is easier in Roman numerals than in Hindu-Arabic (European) numerals. I + I = II X + X = XX X + X + X = XXX C + X = CX CX - X = C For these carefully chosen examples,