Sorry but I have no knowledge of what you are referring to wrt the Lisp comments
Personally I think we have gone a bit overboard with the quad functions. But be that as it may they are not really a part of the apl language per se are they? What I am suggesting is a single apl symbol consuming 1 point in quad av. That symbol could be used in any apl expression because the parser would just branch off to your implementation of whatever. Not a library; not a framework; but a plugin that is aware of the interpreter environment and is well behaved. As I recall we used to model language enhancements using apl itself. But you don’t need a plugin for that. Once we had it figured out we would implement it in assembly language. And that was what we would have access to via the i-beam. And for existing code (speeding up dot products which I worked on) we would test using the i-beam feature as I recall. Peter > On Mar 16, 2016, at 12:41 PM, David B. Lamkins <da...@lamkins.net> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 01:17:36PM +0800, Elias Mårtenson wrote: >> I'm not entirely sure why Quad-AV even needs to exist in a modern >> program? We should be able to use all of Unicode to name our functions. > > Clearly quad-AV is necessary for compatibility with legacy APL code; as such, > it'd be ill-advised to break that compatibility. Of course
