On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 07:40:38PM +0100, Angel Faus wrote: > 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.
Me too. > It is simpler, and we can always use de "dot notation" for bigger > bases. What he said. -Scott -- Jonathan Scott Duff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
