Re: [NTG-context] r2l alignment and linenumbering conflict?

On Mon, 03 Aug 2015 09:56:33 -0600, Hans Hagen wrote:

On 8/3/2015 5:42 PM, Idris Samawi Hamid ادريس سماوي حامد wrote:

...

Hi Hans,

On Mon, 03 Aug 2015 09:13:34 -0600, Hans Hagen wrote:

...

On 8/3/2015 4:56 PM, Hans Hagen wrote:

...

what would be the proper name for such a conversion? simplearabic? arabicdigits?

...

[myconversion] [١,٢,٣,٤,٥,٦,٧,٨,٩,١٠, ١١,١٢,١٣,١٤,١٥,١٦,١٧,١٨,١٩,٢٠, ۲۱,۲۲,۲۳,۲٤,۲٥,۲٦,۲۷,۲۸,۲۹,۳۰, another million entries

the next beta will have:

\setuplinenumbering[conversion=arabicdecimals]

What's wrong with 'persiannumerals' and 'arabicnumerals' which we had before? They are not supposed to by synonymous for abjadnumerals... In any case we need

U+: [0030-0039] -> [0660-0669]: arabicdecimals U+: [0030-0039] -> [06F0-06F9]: persiandecimals

don't confuse decimals with alphabetic ones

a b c ... z aa ab ac ... az ....

vs

1 2 3 ... 10 11 12

so decimals is mapping chars 0-9 onto whatever else, in principle we can have 15 => ae and 21 => ba

Sure, but that's what abjadnumerals are for. Right now we have abjadnumerals=persiannumerals=arabicnumerals If that's intentional, then no problem, arabicdecimals and persiandecimals are fine nomenclature Ah, it just hit me: You're making a literal analogy with romannumerals.... Best wishes Idris -- Idris Samawi Hamid Professor of Philosophy Colorado State University Fort Collins, CO 80523