On 13 October 2016 at 08:02, Greg Ewing firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Mikhail V wrote:
Consider unicode table as an array with glyphs.
You mean like this one?
Unless I've miscounted, that one has the characters arranged in rows of 16, so it would be *harder* to look up a decimal index in it.
Nice point finally, I admit, although quite minor. Where the data implies such pagings or alignment, the notation should be (probably) more binary-oriented. But: you claim to see bit patterns in hex numbers? Then I bet you will see them much better if you take binary notation (2 symbols) or quaternary notation (4 symbols), I guarantee. And if you take consistent glyph set for them also you'll see them twice better, also guarantee 100%. So not that the decimal is cool, but hex sucks (too big alphabet) and _the character set_ used for hex optically sucks. That is the point. On the other hand why would unicode glyph table which is to the biggest part a museum of glyphs would be necesserily paged in a binary-friendly manner and not in a decimal friendly manner? But I am not saying it should or not, its quite irrelevant for this particular case I think.