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

[Peter Teeson]

Sorry but I have no knowledge of what you are referring to wrt the Lisp comments

Personally I think we have gone a bit overboard with the quad functions.
But be that as it may they are not really a part of the apl language per se are 
they?

What I am suggesting is a single apl symbol consuming 1 point in quad av.

That symbol could be used in any apl expression because the parser would just
branch off to your implementation of whatever.

Not a library; not a framework; but a plugin that is aware of the interpreter 
environment
and is well behaved. 

As I recall we used to model language enhancements using apl itself.
But you don’t need a plugin for that.

Once we had it figured out we would implement it in assembly language.
And that was what we would have access to via the i-beam.

And for existing code (speeding up dot products which I worked on) we would 
test using
the i-beam feature as I recall.

Peter

> On Mar 16, 2016, at 12:41 PM, David B. Lamkins <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 01:17:36PM +0800, Elias Mårtenson wrote:
>>   I'm not entirely sure why Quad-AV even needs to exist in a modern
>>   program? We should be able to use all of Unicode to name our functions.
> 
> Clearly quad-AV is necessary for compatibility with legacy APL code; as such, 
> it'd be ill-advised to break that compatibility.
Of course