Asmus, > >> I'm curious if any thought was given to this, and what code points I'm > >> missing in my analysis. > > U+1D452 MATHEMATICAL ITALIC SMALL E (or merely U+0065 LATIN > > SMALL LETTER E), also used for Euler's number. See also U+2147. > > Now you are confusing Euler's constant - also depicted with U+03B3 GREEK > SMALL LETTER GAMMA, with the natural exponent.
Actually I'm not confusing the two -- which is why I wrote Euler's number, not Euler's constant. Perhaps I misplaced "also" in the sentence, but I was referring here to 2.718... not to 0.57721... > That kind of confusion is > really not helpful Hehe. Well, it wasn't me, but mathematicians who took to calling these things Euler's number and Euler's constant confusingly. Check the wikis. ;-) > and is what drives people like Karl to ask for > numeric property values in the first place - to unambiguously define > what these symbols were encoded for. > > The proper place to document that, without introducing a formal > property, is with additional nameslist annotation for a few characters. I disagree. Because that just further cements the notion that these characters *are* the constants. We keep going around on this, both about mathematical values and about confusion of characters with units of SI, as well. > I suggest that you add the correct value for Euler's constant as a > comment and cross reference that character it to 03B3 > > 0.57721 56649 01532 86060 65120 90082 40243 10421 59335 93992 > > should be approximate enough...? > > At the same time you could add a comment e â 2.718 for 212F - Again, not > to document the value, but to make clear, beyond the character name, > what constant the alias for 212F denotes. Nah, I don't think those are helpful here. Maybe the UTC would disagree with me. ;-) --Ken
