>
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.
