Hi Jüergen, Sorry for the miscommunication.
SVN 306 does fix 2⊃⎕ec. However, 3⊃⎕ec is still incorrect. 3⊃⎕ec should be the same as what ⎕em would have been without ⎕ec in the case where ⎕ec traps an error. Specifically: 3⊃⎕ec should be a three-row text array in which line 1 is the error message (which may be the text provided to a ⎕es), line 2 is the offending line of code and line 3 is the error caret(s). This is the same three error-message lines that would have been printed to the APL session without the ⎕ec. This behavior is covered elsewhere on page 280 of the IBM Reference. I apologize for having left the `paragraph 3' reference in my first email. On Sun, 2014-06-01 at 18:53 +0200, Juergen Sauermann wrote: > Hi David, > > thanks, fixed in SVN 306. > > /// Jürgen > > > On 05/31/2014 07:51 PM, David B. Lamkins wrote: > > See the IBM Reference, page 280, paragraph 3. > > > > When ⎕EC executes an expression that signals a user-defined error, the > > second and third items of the result should be the same as the > > expression's ⎕ET (which would be 0 1 in this case) and ⎕EM. GNU APL > > returns 0 0 and 'User defined error'. > > > > Note also that ⎕ET must not be changed by ⎕EC. GNU APL already does this > > correctly. > > > > It's not clear from the IBM Reference whether ⎕EM should also not be > > changed by ⎕EC. It seems reasonable to assume that *not* changing ⎕EM is > > the correct behavior; the whole point of ⎕EC is to execute an expression > > in a controlled manner. If so, GNU APL is already correct in this > > regard. > > > > > > ⎕es 'foo' > > foo > > ⎕ES 'foo' > > ^ > > ⎕em > > foo > > ⎕ES 'foo' > > ^ > > ⎕et > > 0 1 > > ⎕ec '⎕es ''foo''' > > 0 0 0 User defined error > > ⎕em > > > > > > > > > > > > >
