Sorry about the blank reply. Itchy trigger finger. On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Ken Whistler <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 10/6/2016 12:44 PM, Garth Wallace wrote: > > Some representatives of the WFCC have proposed alternate arrangements that > assume there will be a need for bitwise operations to covert between the > existing chess symbols in the Miscellaneous Symbols block and related > symbols in the new block. I don't see the need but maybe I'm missing > something. > > > I don't think you are missing anything. Bitwise operations would certainly > *not* be needed in a case like this. Small lookup and mapping tables > would suffice. > > --Ken > > Thank you. Just to be clear, this is the proposed allocation as it stands: http://i556.photobucket.com/albums/ss7/Garth_Wallace/proposed%20characters_zps81m0frvl.png That arrangement is the result of some discussion with a representative of the WFCC. And here are the alternatives that another WFCC representative recently proposed and that prompted my question: http://i556.photobucket.com/albums/ss7/Garth_Wallace/wfcc%20alternatives_zpstdvfgcf2.png
