Hello! Elias Mårtenson <loke...@gmail.com> writes:
> Finally, about extensions, I have actually considered implementing a > new language (on top of Common Lisp most likely) that implements the > essence of the APL syntax and functions but with Lisp integration. And > rest assured that this thing will not be called "APL". :-) 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. As far as GNU APL is concerned, I'm with Blake: Jürgen provided us with a free APL 2 implementation. That's a great achievement, and I very much appreciate it. Having a conforming APL 2 to learn and experiment with, including its source, is great. It's just not necessarily in all points the language I'd like to use. Regards, Daniel
