Dear Juergen, I couldn't agree with you more. Of course, the wacky way it does work is very convenient. →'' has always meant do not branch, so perhaps no solution ends up doing what you'd almost always want. →N is contradictory, I agree.
Thanks a lot for making the change! Blake On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 8:28 AM, Juergen Sauermann < juergen.sauerm...@t-online.de> wrote: > Hi Blake, > > I changed GNU APL to behave like IBM APL2, see SVN 320. > > I actually believe that the behavior shown by IBM APL2 is not very > consistent. > In my opinion continuation of a stopped function should be →'' or →⍬ and > not →N. > The problem with →N is that now →N in a function behaves differently (it > stops) than →N > from immediate execution (doesn't stop). > > But compatibility rules. > > /// Jürgen > > > > On 06/10/2014 06:26 PM, Blake McBride wrote: > > It doesn't allow continuation of a stop: > > GNU APL: > > ∇test > [1] '1' > [2] '2' > [3] '3' > [4] '4' > [5] ∇ > test > 1 > 2 > 3 > 4 > S∆test←3 > test > 1 > 2 > test[3] > →3 > test[3] > > The branch to 3 should have caused the continuation of the program. > > > IBM APL 2: > > ∇TEST > [1] '1' > [2] '2' > [3] '3' > [4] '4' > [5] ∇ > TEST > 1 > 2 > 3 > 4 > S∆TEST←3 > TEST > 1 > 2 > TEST[3] > →3 > 3 > 4 > )SI > TEST > 1 > 2 > TEST[3] > > > > Thanks. > > Blake > > > > > On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 12:53 PM, Juergen Sauermann < > juergen.sauerm...@t-online.de> wrote: > >> Hi Blake, >> >> thanks, fixed in SVN 316. >> >> /// Jürgen >> >> >> >> On 06/02/2014 02:20 AM, Blake McBride wrote: >> >>> Just offering an opinion - >>> >>> Since APL trace and stop are quite useful, and are part of the standard, >>> my opinion is that these should be top priority - second only to bug fixes. >>> These should come before work on enhancements or fixes to extensions. >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> Blake >>> >>> >> > >
