[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: emacs + unicode + hebrew + bidi
From: |
James Cloos |
Subject: |
Re: emacs + unicode + hebrew + bidi |
Date: |
Tue, 04 Nov 2008 16:04:23 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.110011 (No Gnus v0.11) Emacs/23.0.60 (gnu/linux) |
|> The numbers are from left to right
Another way to wor what he says is that the (so-called) Arabic digits
are big-endian when read LTR and little-endian when read RTL, and that
regardless of how one actually thinks of them the representation of
integers is inherently little-endian.
Decimals in (-1.0,1.0), OTOH, are inherently big-endian. And so the
full range of the Reals written in decimal form are middle-endian.
IIRC, the digits as we know them were invented (probably in India) in a
culture which wrote RTL and were not reversed when adopted into the LTR
scripts. Which suggests there is an etymological basis for his thesis.
Nonetheless, most of the worl currently thinks of them as exclusively
big-endian LTR, no matter what script they are used with.
-JimC
--
James Cloos <cloos@jhcloos.com> OpenPGP: 1024D/ED7DAEA6
- Re: emacs + unicode + hebrew + bidi, B. T. Raven, 2008/11/03
- Re: Re: emacs + unicode + hebrew + bidi, cyberkm, 2008/11/04
- RE: Re: emacs + unicode + hebrew + bidi, Bourgneuf Francois, 2008/11/04
- Re: RE: Re: emacs + unicode + hebrew + bidi, cyberkm, 2008/11/04
- Re: emacs + unicode + hebrew + bidi,
James Cloos <=
- RE: Re: emacs + unicode + hebrew + bidi, Bourgneuf Francois, 2008/11/04
- Re: RE: Re: emacs + unicode + hebrew + bidi, cyberkm, 2008/11/04
- Re: emacs + unicode + hebrew + bidi, Richard Riley, 2008/11/04