On Dec 12, 2007 4:25 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ian Kelly wrote: > > I've never seen any version of Arabic > >numerals that was little-endian. > > Actually Arabic numerals in their original form *were* little-endian. > Written right-to-left, like the rest of the Arabic script. When they > were adopted by Europeans, the same visual order was maintained: > least-significant digit on the right. The visual order was maintained > even when numbers were mixed with left-to-right text. Now everyone thinks > it's a big-endian numeral system. Worse, people think that big-endian > is somehow more correct or more natural than little-endian, in general.
What you're saying is that the orientation of the number relative to the page has never changed; then it seems to me that either left-to-right big-endian or right-to-left little-endian (which are of course identical) are acceptable; left-to-right little-endian and right-to-left big-endian are not. comex's example was left-to-right little-endian, so it should not be allowed. -root
