[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Bug-apl] Feature suggestion: multiple function arguments

From: Louis de Forcrand
Subject: Re: [Bug-apl] Feature suggestion: multiple function arguments
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 00:58:29 +0100

Although I personally like tacit style, I agree that they shouldn't make
their way into the main branch. It could be interesting to see them
added to a fork (heh) of GNU APL however.

As to the lack of APL symbols in J, I sometimes miss the nice symbols
present in APL. J thus loses some "handwriteability". This shouldn't
however keep you from trying it out; it's quite similar to APL and the
concepts of verb rank and function composition make you think
differently about the way you solve problems. It's definitely worth
a try.


> On 13 Mar 2016, at 19:35, Kacper Gutowski <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 6:20 PM, Juergen Sauermann
> <address@hidden> wrote:
>> it actually does create conflicts.
>> In IBM APL2 and in GNU APL, the expression
>> ⍺ (f g h) ⍵
>> gives a 3 item vector with the items being ⍺, (f g h), and ⍵.
>> In Dyalog APL it gives (quote):
>> (⍺ f ⍵) g (⍺ h ⍵) ⍝ dyadic (fgh) fork
> I'm not certain whether it does create conflicts or not in general,
> but I think this particular example is flawed: ⍺ (f g h) ⍵ could be
> anything depending on what name classes those symbols have
> (particularly if g were an operator).  When f, g, and h are all
> functions, then it's not a vector, but a syntax error.  No conflict
> here.
> -k

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]