Bit arithmetic on Unicode characters?

[Ken Shirriff]

Looking at the image, the idea of the proposal is to include chess piece
symbols in all four 90° rotations? Wouldn't it be better to do this in
markup than in Unicode? I fear a combinatorial explosion if Unicode starts
including all the possible orientations of characters. (Maybe there's a
good reason to do this for chess; I'm just going off the image
<http://i556.photobucket.com/albums/ss7/Garth_Wallace/proposed%20characters_zps81m0frvl.png>
.)

Ken

On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 9:36 PM, Garth Wallace <gwalla at gmail.com> wrote:

> Sorry about the blank reply. Itchy trigger finger.
>
> On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Ken Whistler <kenwhistler at att.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 10/6/2016 12:44 PM, Garth Wallace wrote:
>>
>> Some representatives of the WFCC have proposed alternate arrangements
>> that assume there will be a need for bitwise operations to covert between
>> the existing chess symbols in the Miscellaneous Symbols block and related
>> symbols in the new block. I don't see the need but maybe I'm missing
>> something.
>>
>>
>> I don't think you are missing anything. Bitwise operations would
>> certainly *not* be needed in a case like this. Small lookup and mapping
>> tables would suffice.
>>
>> --Ken
>>
>>
> Thank you.
>
> Just to be clear, this is the proposed allocation as it stands:
> http://i556.photobucket.com/albums/ss7/Garth_Wallace/
> proposed%20characters_zps81m0frvl.png
>
> That arrangement is the result of some discussion with a representative of
> the WFCC.
>
> And here are the alternatives that another WFCC representative recently
> proposed and that prompted my question: http://i556.photobucket.com/
> albums/ss7/Garth_Wallace/wfcc%20alternatives_zpstdvfgcf2.png
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20161008/c2c00f1e/attachment.html>