3 ms·
For all those groups-of-4 pacmans symbols wouldn't it be better to have a single pacman and a rotation angle adjustment? (then you also wouldn't be limited to j
by eviks 3y ago
For all those groups-of-4 pacmans symbols wouldn't it be better to have a single pacman and a rotation angle adjustment? (then you also wouldn't be limited to just 4)
- ygra 3y agoUnicode in general doesn't like encoding arbitrary markup unless absolutely necessary. And for historical character sets the scope is limited and finite, so just using four code points is much easier than trying to specify a higher-order meaning for certain sequences of code points. Unicode also doesn't like encoding things based on hypothetical future use.