Number subgrammar
Jorge Llamb?as scripsit:
> Robin:
> > OK. John has made it very clear that this is *not* the purpose of pi'e,
> > that jo'i is the general tuple creator.
>
> I changed my grammar accordingly. Now pi'e can mix freely with the
> digits and with ki'o. I think {ki'o} should bind closer than {pi'e},
> so there would be no grouping comma for high base macro-digits. Or
> maybe it should be the other way around? What are more frequent,
> less-than-four-digit numbers in bases higher than 1000, or
> more-than-three-digit numbers in bases higher than 16? Probably both
> are so infrequent that it is not worth having a rule for this.
Probably, but I should say that long numbers in low bases are more likely
than extremely high bases. I have used base 1000 myself, but nothing higher.
--
A poetical purist named Cowan that's me: cowan@ccil.org
Once put the rest of us dowan. on xml-dev
"Your verse would be sweeter http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
If it only had metre http://www.reutershealth.com
And rhymes that didn't force me to frowan." overpacked line! --Michael Kay