Hello Jürgen, I know that you consider parsing unterminated strings to be a feature, but I would ask you to reconsider this.
It is my personal opinion that this causes more opportunities for confusion than potential benefits. I would like to share the latest such problem that I came across: I was looking at how GNU APL was parsing complex numbers, and I typed the following: * ⍎'2J3"* 2J3 Note how I had accidentally terminated the string using a double quote instead of a single quote. This was a typo on my part. If unterminated strings had resulted in an error, as I am proposing, I woul dhave gotten a SYNTAX ERROR (probably) and I my mistake would have been clear. Instead, it looked almost correct. I did notice that there was a space preceding the complex number, so I did this: * 8⎕CR ⍎'2J3"* ┌→──────┐ │2J3 ┌⊖┐│ │ │ ││ │ └─┘│ └∊──────┘ OK, now I was really confused. It took a while for me to figure out that I had actually been bitten by the unterminated array feature twice in a single statement: First, the input was parsed by GNU APL as *⍎'2J3"'*. Then, the lamp function interpreted its argument 2J3" as 2J3"", yielding a two-element array consisting of a complex number and an empty array. I think not giving an error in this case causes more confusion than it's worth. Finally, when reading the evaluation sequence in section 6.1.1 of the standard, I interpret that as this is required to signal syntax-error in this situation. Regards, Elias
