Michael Lazzaro escribió: > We should talk about this. My original proposal was to do this: > > (Case 1) base 2-10: use 0..9 > > (Case 2) base 11-36: use (0..9, a..z), but allow A..Z such that > > 0x00ff == 0x00FF > > .... which seems necessary, IMHO. > > (Case 3) base 37-62: use (0..9,a..z,A..Z), such that > > 60:ff != 60:FF > > .... this is obviously inconsistent w/ Case (2), but is darn useful > sometimes.
I would preferer to limit the usage of "letter notation" to just base 11-36, and have n:F = n:f for every n. It is simpler, and we can always use de "dot notation" for bigger bases. -angel
