Re: Grammar for roman numerals

Thomas Dickey <dickey@saltmine.radix.net>
6 Apr 2007 00:03:58 -0400

From comp.compilers

Related articles
[2 earlier articles]
Re: Grammar for roman numerals boldyrev+nospam@cgitftp.uiggm.nsc.ru (Ivan Boldyrev) (2007-03-29)
Re: Grammar for roman numerals mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de (Dmitry A. Kazakov) (2007-03-30)
Re: Grammar for roman numerals martin@gkc.org.uk (Martin Ward) (2007-03-30)
Re: Grammar for roman numerals mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de (Dmitry A. Kazakov) (2007-04-01)
Re: Grammar for roman numerals DrDiettrich1@aol.com (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2007-04-01)
Re: Grammar for roman numerals alex.habar.nam@gmail.com (whiskey) (2007-04-06)
*Re: Grammar for roman numerals dickey@saltmine.radix.net (Thomas Dickey)* (2007-04-06)**
Re: Grammar for roman numerals mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de (Dmitry A. Kazakov) (2007-04-06)
Re: Grammar for roman numerals DrDiettrich1@aol.com (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2007-04-08)

From:	Thomas Dickey <dickey@saltmine.radix.net>
Newsgroups:	comp.compilers
Date:	6 Apr 2007 00:03:58 -0400
Organization:	RadixNet Internet Services
References:	07-03-095 07-03-118
Keywords:	history
Posted-Date:	06 Apr 2007 00:03:58 EDT

Dmitry A. Kazakov <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote:
> Roman numerals (in their standard form without IIII and other stuff) don't

fwiw, I've read that IIII was the standard form which the Romans used,
and that IV was a later innovation.

googling "roman iiii iv" gives this for instance:

http://elginwatches.org/help/roman_IIII.html
http://www.bhi.co.uk/hints/roman.htm

--
Thomas E. Dickey
http://invisible-island.net
ftp://invisible-island.net