Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!bu.edu!xylogics!samsung!think.com!mincy
From: mincy@think.com (Jeffrey Mincy)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Subject: Re: Common Lisp, SOME, EVERY...
Message-ID: <1991Feb28.224110.25217@Think.COM>
Date: 28 Feb 91 22:41:10 GMT
References: <1991Feb27.160615.8328@linus.mitre.org>
Sender: news@Think.COM
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
Lines: 20

In article <1991Feb27.160615.8328@linus.mitre.org> john@mingus.mitre.org (John D. Burger) writes:

>I have no use for ... most of the FORMAT sublanguage (which is
>Turing complete, isn't it? :) ).  

nope, format is not turing complete.  It needs a way to assign to 
a variable (and look at the variable).  I spent some time with Guy
thinking about the turing completeness of format.

>John Burger                                               john@mitre.org


On a more serious note, I think that people are using a confused definition
of complexity.  A language that includes 1000 functions is not necessarily 
10 times more complex than a language that only includes 100 functions.

--

-- jeff
seismo!godot.think.com!mincy