P Witte wrote:
>wlenerz writes:
>
>
>
>>On 29 May 2002, at 20:50, Lafe McCorkle wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>What about 2.99, 2.A0, 2.A1 ,2.A2 ........all the way to 2.FF?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Nothing wrong with putting a little Hex on it to stay in space.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Sound great to me!
>>
>>
>
>Except the counting is somewhat exotic. I mean if we go from decimal to hex
>then the next number after 2.99 is 2.64 which is rather confusing, hence my
>suggestion 2$64. If we pretend to assume that the counting always was in hex
>then 2.9A would be more logical. 2.A0 might imply that were starting all
>over again - which we are in a way - but then 3.00 seems just as good.
>
>Please lets not start a war over this ;) It was only meant as a bit of fun.
>
>Per
>
>Per:
>
>Let me explain myself. When I typed 'Hex' I abbreviated hexadecimal which is often
>used in ladderlogic addressing. Since we are already at v. 2.xx limits in the
>decimal numbers, HD allows revisions in a logical movement from where we are. Be
>assured that the progression is 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, A, B, C, D, E, F.
>
The word hex was originally an attempt to insert a pun. I hope it
got a chuckle or so.
I apologise for being a few days behind. And no flame intended.
Lafe
>
>
