On Fri, 2004-09-24 at 16:58, Edward Peschko wrote: > Ok, ok, I'll give you that point ... lets call them 'intimately related' and > leave it at that... if you say "3 foo" and your algorithm goes: > > "3 foo" => 3 => "2" > > then you know something is desperately wrong.
Yes, and you know that because the definition of number-to-string conversion is such that 3 becomes "3". I think the point being made was that it's not so much about reversability (the Unicode example was an excellent point there), but about matching an arbitrary set of rules for each (seperate) operation. Why, for example does 3 not become "11"? Is base 10 superior for some reason? Nope, it's just an arbitrary choice based on the prefernces and compatibility needs of the language designers. -- Aaron Sherman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Senior Systems Engineer and Toolsmith "It's the sound of a satellite saying, 'get me down!'" -Shriekback
