Thank you. I really appreciate it. Regards, Elias
On 20 May 2014 21:52, Juergen Sauermann <juergen.sauerm...@t-online.de>wrote: > Hi Blake, Elias, > > OK, I changed this in SVN 278. > > /// Jürgen > > > > On 05/20/2014 07:29 AM, Blake McBride wrote: > > I agree. I was surprised a couple of times when GNU APL automatically > terminated a string. I don't remember APL automatically terminating > strings. I think I'd rather see an error too. > > Just an opinion. > > Thanks. > > Blake > > > > On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 12:15 AM, Elias Mårtenson <loke...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> 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 >> > > >
