In article <53d83f69e8bbai...@argonet.co.uk>, Brian <bbai...@argonet.co.uk> wrote: > In article <53d83d6e6ebrian.jord...@btinternet.com>, Brian Jordan > <brian.jord...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > In article <53d83be5c4bbai...@argonet.co.uk>, Brian > > <bbai...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> > [Snip] > > > Who'd have thought it?? Certainly not me. I'm intuitive but not that > > > intuitive. I assumed that # was as per American practice and is part > > > of any/all part codes. > > I think the logic is that the "#" is in the caption alongside the box > > in much the same way as we often see "£" alongside boxes when a sum of > > money needs to be entered. Several of us seem to have fallen foul of > > this and had to rewrite our reports, I reccommend writing reports in a > > text editor and saving them as insurance and not putting the "#" in > > the version number. > OK, Brian, but I'm not into guessology. # is not a British convention > anyway so far as I am aware, for some 80ish years, it's a hindrance! Why > put it there when it serves no useful purpose, I ask? Perhaps if anyone is interested to see just how confusing the use of the # is have a look at Wikipedia - Number sign. In American practice I've often seen it added onto British nomenclature to, possibly, mean item number, part number, mark number, or whatever, without adding any useful intelligent information. Having handled many 100,000's of British manufacturing and development drawings, spares and component data sheets, as well as specifications, I don't recall ever seeing the use of the # sign. If I recall correctly, parts columns were invariably headed Part No. Without defining what # means it follows that it is meaningless. Who was it who said, 'if you would converse with me, you must first define your terms'?
