On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 7:10 AM, Juergen Sauermann <
juergen.sauerm...@t-online.de> wrote:
> Hi Christian,
>
> see my answers inline below...
>
> /// Jürgen
>
>
> On 02/19/2015 03:10 AM, Christian Robert wrote:
>
> ...
>
>
> how hard is it to implement the standard/or-not-as-standard-as-it-seems
>
> :if {boolean}
> do this
> :else
> do that
> :endif
>
> :repeat
> do this
> :until {boolean}
>
> :for {var} :in {list}
> do this
> :endfor
>
> :forlcl {var} :in {list}
> do this
> :endforlcl
>
> I think there is a :while :endwhile too
>
>
> thoses are really missing (to my point of view).
>
>
> 1. those things are probably not very hard to implement. However:
>
> 2. I try to minimize non-standard extensions of GNU APL because every such
> extension
> creates incompatibilities of APL programs that are using them. My idea
> of free software
> is that not only GNU APL itself should be free but also APL programs
> running on GNU APL.
> And for a free APL program to be useful it is important that is is
> portable between different APL interpreters.
>
I agree with Juergen. The structures you suggest (although I would add a
'while') make a lot of sense, but so would a lot of other things. There are
many single-source, non-standard, hodgepodge languages out there that few
are interested in. APL is APL. It is what it is, and it has proven itself
valuable as it is. GNU APL's full support of APL2, along with its keyed
file system, make GNU APL a very powerful and proven standard. Adding a
bunch of hodgepodge extensions would ruin it.
Just one opinion.
Blake McBride
