less-than or equal to with dot in the less-than part?

[Asmus Freytag (c)]

On 8/11/2016 12:33 AM, philip chastney wrote:
> there is another issue with these symbols  --  they appear among the mathematical symbols but, in the reference given, they are used as delimiters
>
> I know of no other application for these symbols other than as delimiters  --  are they used as mathematical operators?
>
> and how, in general, would one define the properties for characters which may sometimes be operators, and sometimes be delimiters?

First and foremost. If the precise form of these (straight equals, but 
dotted) corresponds to a delimiter, whereas the other form (slanted 
equals) is an operator, then that would be even more reason to not unify 
these (whether with or without a variation sequence).

Are the already encoded ones given the property of relational operators?

Nothing prevents anyone from using an integral sing as a funny-looking 
fence. I would find it acceptable if the informative properties were 
based on majority or customary use (in the hopes that that would allow 
some picking of a preferred preference).

A./
> /phil
>
> --------------------------------------------
> On Wed, 10/8/16, Asmus Freytag (c) <asmusf at ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>   Subject: Re: less-than or equal to with dot in the less-than part?
>   To: unicode at unicode.org
>   Date: Wednesday, 10 August, 2016, 4:16 PM
>   
>   On 8/10/2016 5:06 AM,
>   Andrew West wrote:
>   > On 10 August 2016 at
>   12:21, Costello, Roger L. <costello at mitre.org>
>   wrote:
>   >> Do you know if there is
>   another version of the symbol, but with a straight equals
>   sign rather than a slanted equals sign? (The book that I
>   referred to uses a straight equals sign not a slanted equals
>   sign)
>   > No, but there are lots of
>   standardized variants for mathematical glyph
>   > variants of this sort (see first section
>   of
>   > http://www.unicode.org/Public/UNIDATA/StandardizedVariants.txt),
>   so
>   > you could ask the UTC to define two
>   more mathematical standardized
>   >
>   variants:
>   >
>   > 2A7F
>   FE00; with straight equal; # LESS-THAN OR SLANTED EQUAL TO
>   WITH DOT INSIDE
>   > 2A80 FE00; with
>   straight equal; # GREATER-THAN OR SLANTED EQUAL TO
>   > WITH DOT INSIDE
>   >
>   > Then all you would need is to get someone
>   to support the new
>   > standardized
>   variants in a math font.
>   >
>   
>   Unicode does not use
>   standardized variants for that particular
>   distinctions in the undotted part of that
>   family of symbols.
>   
>   A./
>   
>