Message-Id: <9201290755.AA00024@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>
Date:         Tue, 28 Jan 1992 11:01:59 GMT
Reply-To: cbmvax!uunet!bradford.ac.uk!cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu!C.J.Fine
Sender: Lojban list <cbmvax!uunet!CUVMA.BITNET!cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu!LOJBAN>
From: CJ FINE <cbmvax!uunet!BRADFORD.AC.UK!cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu!C.J.Fine>
Subject:      Re: Counting and so on
To: John Cowan <cowan@SNARK.THYRSUS.COM>,
        Eric Raymond <eric@SNARK.THYRSUS.COM>,
        Eric Tiedemann <est@SNARK.THYRSUS.COM>
In-Reply-To:  <no.id>; from "Chris Handley" at Jan 28, 92 9:19 am
Status: RO

Chris Handley:

> . . . If one thinks
> about it, we do not normally write long strings of digits, we break
> them up. Telephone numvbers are divided into area code, exchange
> code, and number; other numbers are divided by spaces or commas
> depending on your background and I deplore the fact that most PLs do
> not allow one to do the same - I certainly cannot easily comprehend
> a string such as 18359807463 without some thought, and I am
> convinced I could not do it on the fly in the middle of speech.
> However the equivalent string 18,359,807,463 is a doddle.
>
> Hence my vote is for some way of distinguishing the positions of
> digits in a string so that large numbers can be assimilated easily.
> This would also mean that I could distinguish between a string of
> digits and a number or break a 'nameber' up in different ways -
> there is a big difference between 'Pennsylvania 64 thousand' and
> Pennsylvania 64 oh oh oh for those of you that can remember that far
> back.

This is what "ki'o" is for (see the relevant chapter in the textbook)
        li pabiki'o cimusoki'o binozeki'o vomuci

>
> In addition I would like to support Ivan's position on complex
> numbers, the construct {value kau value} is short and precise and
> translates easily to any of the other ways of dealing with complex
> numbers.

I agree (as I've already said)


                Kolin
                                c.j.fine@bradford.ac.uk