On 5 March 2016 at 23:28, Louis de Forcrand <ol...@bluewin.ch> wrote:
> That would be a great idea. However, it would indeed take not only quite a > bit of > time to set up, but would also need constant checking to make sure the > updates > in the main branch don’t conflict with additions. > While I just said that I believe the main branch should probably > concentrate on > the standard, one of the things I’ve really fallen in love with in J and > that is > completely missing in standard APL is tacit definition. Not only does it > allow > inversible functions and idiom detection for optimisation, but it is just > simply > so elegant: > mean ← +⌿ ÷ ≢ > This is where we disagree, but nothing wrong with that. I can certainly understand why someone would like that construct, but I just don't like it at all. I think this is probably the least clear and easily the most confusing language construct I know of in any language I have tried. I would certainly like to see some simpler way to define such functions without multiple levels of lambda definitions, but the J model is not the right way, in my opinion. Regards, Elias
