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)
| List of all articles for this month |

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

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



Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.