In GNU APL, when you list a function via:
∇fun[⎕]∇
the format of the returned output has several problems (inconsistencies
with respect to the IBM documentation). Some of the differences are small
but it would be nice of they were corrected. One difference is important
in my opinion. I will use the following function as an example:
∇myfun[⎕]∇
[0] z←myfun x
[1] ⍝ sample function
[2] →(x < 5)/EN1
[3] z←x+10
[4] →END
[5] EN1:x←x
[6] END:
1. The first problem (and the one I feel is important) is that a closing ∇
is not shown. The reason this is important is to avoid confusion over
whether you are seeing the entire function definition or not. Without the
closing ∇ you are not sure if you see the whole function, or the display is
being chopped off early.
2. To be consistent, an opening ∇ should be shown.
3. There should be 3 spaces between the line number designation (i.e. [4])
and the code not 1. This is important because of the following item.
4. Code lines that begin with ⍝ or a line label are separated from the
line number designation by 2 spaces rather than 3. This is to make those
lines stick out to the eye. It makes the code easier to read.
5. When the line numbers go from one digit to two, the space between the
line number designation and the code is reduced by one. A more accurate
way of describing this is that the line number designation always takes up
5 character positions. Doing this, code is always consistently aligned
regardless of the number of digits in the line number designation.
Taking all the above into account, this is what should be displayed:
∇myfun[⎕]∇
∇
[0] z←myfun x
[1] ⍝ sample function
[2] →(x < 5)/EN1
[3] z←x+10
[4] →END
[5] EN1:x←x
[6] END:
∇
I would imagine that these changes are trivial, but I think they would make
the system much more consistent. The following are some references for you
to verify my findings:
IBM APL2 Programming: Language Reference, page 346
ibid, page 383
Thanks.
Blake
