Thanks, Jüergen. SVN 307 is, I think, *almost* correct. My reading of the IBM Reference suggests that 3⊃⎕ec should be character matrix having three rows.
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 7:10 AM, Juergen Sauermann < juergen.sauerm...@t-online.de> wrote: > Hi David, > > sorry, my fault. I hadn't read the small sentence for result=0 that > it should be ⎕EM-like. Fixed in SVN 307. > > Please note that GNU APL may open execution contexts (= SI-entries) > differently from > IBM APL so that sometimes error messages could differ. The error code is > normally > correct, but if an error is user-defined then the error message from the > user (⎕ES) > could be lost because the context generating it was closed already. In > that case > the context retuns an error token (containing the error code) but the > token does not > contain the entire error message. > > /// Jürgen > > > > On 06/02/2014 02:26 AM, David B. Lamkins wrote: > >> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> > -- "Far out in the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable end of the Western Spiral arm of the Galaxy lies a small unregarded yellow sun. Orbiting this at a distance of roughly ninety-eight million miles is an utterly insignificant little blue-green planet whose ape-descended life forms are so amazingly primitive that they still think programming in Java is a pretty neat idea." -- With apologies to Douglas Adams, who I like to think would have appreciated this. http://soundcloud.com/davidlamkins http://reverbnation.com/lamkins http://reverbnation.com/lcw http://lamkins-guitar.com/ http://lamkins.net/ http://successful-lisp.com/
