Re: Confused ⎕UCS

[Dr . Jürgen Sauermann]

    Hi Kacper, Adam,
      
      thanks. For the sake of compatibility with IBM APL2 I have changed
      ⎕UCS so that
      it accepts float and complex numbers that are near to integers. 
      My initial thinking was
      that e.g. ⎕UCS of a complex number is most likely a
      programming mistake so
      that a DOMAIN ERROR would be more helpful than being a burden. But
      APL2
      compatibility is an even stronger argument in this case.
    
    I have also adjusted the integer domain which is now -$80 ...
    $7FFFFFFF
    so that no conflicts with signed bytes from ⎕FIO should
    arise.
    
    SVN 1362.
    
    Best Regards,
    Jürgen

On 11/22/20 11:11 PM, Kacper Gutowski wrote:

> On Sun, Nov
>       22, 2020 at 03:19:19PM +0100, Dr. Jürgen Sauermann wrote:
>       
> > Floating point and complex numbers are not
> >         allowed as to avoid interference with ⎕CT (i.e. how should
> >         rounding be performed?).
> >         
> >       
>       
>       I share your sentiment regarding the upper bound of the ⎕UCS
>       domain, but throwing a domain error on ⎕UCS1E2 looks like a bug to
>       me too.  1E2 is clearly an integer regardless of the
>       implementation details, and I would be surprised if APL2 didn't
>       accept it.  I would expect rounding to be the same as in all the
>       other places that require near-integers, like array indices.
>       
>       
>       The negative ones are also a bit weird.  I wasn't aware of their
>       existence, and they seem to work in surprising ways when passed to
>       various variants of ⎕CR.
>       
>       
>       -k
>       
>