Re: [Bug-apl] SQL interface needs a workspace

[David B. Lamkins]

A related mutation that'd be interesting (to me, at least) would be an
APL that only allowed definitions in the form of Dyalog's direct
definitions (d-fns). This would include all of the associated
mechanisms, like lexical scoping and guards. Maybe even closures...

On Thu, 2014-05-15 at 22:28 +0200, Daniel H. Leidisch wrote:
> Go for it! I thought about this, too. Give it proper lexically scoped
> lambdas, namespaces, seamless access to some kind of dictionary data
> type (maybe something like in K), make it extendable from within itself
> like Lisp (or at least allow definition of primitives in APL, like in
> NGN APL, and as planned for NARS2000), and I'll definitely take a closer
> look at it, or help you out, if I can. I see no reason why you shouldn't
> call it APL, if it adheres to the core principles. But, of course,
> that's up to you. There were APLs before the standard, and there will be
> APLs after it – unless it just dies a slow death. The extensions and
> nonconformances of today might be tomorrow's standards – if there will
> ever be another one.