Subject: Re: Big Numbers From: Erik Naggum <email@example.com> Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 18:06:18 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> * Erik Naggum | I can imagine it. It does not take more than two languages that differ | only in their bignum support, and considering the proliferation of both | languages and implementations-called-languages, this situation will come | up if it has not already. * Barry Margolin | I thought we were discussing choosing languages, not implementations. "Implementations-called-languages" was a reference to the many languages that have only one implementation of themselves, barely meriting the "language" label. I have no idea what you thought it meant, but it seems you grew hostile because of it. | But I interpreted the original question as whether built-in bignum | support, considered all by itself, would be sufficient reason to choose | Lisp for a particular application. That seems like an unwarranted interpretation -- it is obviously so silly it would cause people to become hostile if they indeed meant such a thing. I interpreted it as a _necessary_ condition, not at all _sufficient_, or if you really have to: a sufficient reason to _reject_ a language, but not choose it. /// -- Norway is now run by a priest from the fundamentalist Christian People's Party, the fifth largest party representing one eighth of the electorate.