宁夏《图书馆理论与实践》1989年第3期,发表了李锡初同志撰写的《借号法纵横谈》一文(以下简称《李文》),拜读之后很受启发。但笔者认为,文中某些提法欠妥。本文仅就此问题,谈一点不够成熟的看法,并与李锡初同志商榷。一、关于“上限”和“下限”《李文》提出在借号法的定义中,应明确规定所能容纳同位类的最低数量和最高数量,即所谓“上限”与“下限”。借号法(包括八分法和双位法)和采用层累制标记时,为了实现类列的无限容纳性而采用的一 Ningxia “Library Theory and Practice” 1989 the third period, published Comrade Li Xichu autobiography “text chat” article (hereinafter referred to as “Wen”), after reading very much inspired. However, I believe that some of the references in the text are not proper. This article only on this issue, talk about not mature enough point of view, and Comrade Li Xichu to discuss. First, the “upper limit” and “lower limit” “Li Wen” proposed in the definition of the law of borrowing should be clearly defined as the minimum number and maximum number of co-located classes that can accommodate, the so-called “upper limit” and “lower limit.” A borrowing method (including the eight-point method and the double-digit method) and the use of layer-by-layer marking, in order to achieve unlimited accommodation of the class column and a