|
|
|
|
|
|
by pavel_lishin
608 days ago
|
|
|
> Dead wrong, but interesting. Hah, hard agree! > Sure, a 40-0 roll being a 50 isn’t immediately obvious, but this is the only internally consistent method I can see here. The author is trading the ability to intuitively read numbers for consistency, which isn't needed. I'd much rather remember the one special case - `00-0` being 100 - rather than the un-intuitive need to treat every `X0-0` as `(X+1)0`. And in any case... consistency is whatever you choose and stick with. |
|
|