Dear Juergen, While the keyed file system is often more desired than a component file system, the semantics of the two are different enough that one cannot easily substitute for the other. Having both options would be a good thing IMO.
David wasn't part of our prior conversation on having the component file system use the same function names and semantics as that described in Annex A of the APL standard. Perhaps he can do that. David would have to speak to his component file system. Do you have interest in including the keyed files system, or shall we wait for now? Thanks. Blake On Sun, Jul 6, 2014 at 8:40 AM, Juergen Sauermann < juergen.sauerm...@t-online.de> wrote: > Hi Blake, > > yes, sorry. The bug-apl mailing list just passed the 2000'th email and > I did not yet have the time to fully understand the different contributions > related to file systems. > > When I briefly read the ISO standard I thought an SQL database with > integers as keys and 10 ⎕CR of > a value would do what they want. I may be wrong, though. > > Anyhow, what I am after is to have an ISO compliant component file system > that can be > shipped with GNU APL(maybe David's is compliant already?) > > /// Jürgen > > > > > > > > On 07/06/2014 03:12 PM, Blake McBride wrote: > >> Dear Juergen, >> >> Looking at Annex A, I am reminded that that has to do with component >> files not keyed files. I think David did a component file system (I think >> we should add too). >> >> All of the component file system functions begin with CF_. Perhaps I >> should change my prefix from KF∆. Arguably, KF∆ is a better prefix than >> KF_ because the underscore is used to separate words. The delta is used to >> separate packages. All this by some sort of pseudo standard (perhaps only >> in my mind). >> >> What would you prefer? >> >> On another note, I am familiar with TeX and Texinfo (& troff). If you >> think it helpful, I can convert and enhance the docs to texinfo format. >> >> Thanks. >> >> Blake >> >> >> >> >
