Subject: Re: What is the most "Elegant" Language? From: Erik Naggum <email@example.com> Date: 1997/10/15 Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.lisp,comp.lang.misc,comp.lang.prolog,comp.lang.scheme Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> * Bill Gribble | "Common LISP: The Language, 2nd edition" is 1029 pages long. I don't | call that "simple". p. 586 et seq (sec 22.3.3 for those of you following | along at home) describe in some depth the requirements *in the language | spec* for Common LISP dealing with numbers represented as Roman numerals, | both modern ("IV") and "old" ("IIII"). perhaps you should actually read those pages? they're about _printing_ numbers in Roman style, not "dealing" with them. it's strictly an output feature, part of the admittedly enormous `format' function and _language_. | I call any language that mandates handling of Roman numerals in its | language definition "a mess." I have a few words for people who can't be bothered to read carefully, too. however, I don't find any particular reason to share them right now. #\Erik -- if you think this year is "97", _you_ are not "year 2000 compliant". see http://www.naggum.no/emacs/ for Emacs-20-related material.