From ... From: Erik Naggum Subject: Re: What is the most "Elegant" Language? Date: 1997/10/15 Message-ID: <3085946866762678@naggum.no>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 280827556 References: <01bcc53d$2d9ef3c0$2f2d11cb@pc1> <342A114D.35C2953D@artelecom.ru> <60r8mf$7m3@omega.gmd.de> <60qfdr$q1a$1@latte.cafe.net> <34314122.1F5A68A8@nospan.netright.com> <343B13ED.FE9234D5@pobox.com> <343B8613.3C75@ici.net> <343C3CB9.456E5795@camtech.net.au> <61vk67$ssh$9@beta.qmw.ac.uk> <87ra9ndrew.fsf@firetrap.csres.utexas.edu> mail-copies-to: never Organization: Naggum Software; +47 8800 8879; http://www.naggum.no Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.lisp,comp.lang.misc,comp.lang.prolog,comp.lang.scheme * 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.