Re: [Bug-apl] Implementing Dyalog Key function

[Juergen Sauermann]

Hi Elias, thanks for explaining your position. My concern about free software is not so much political but more practical. If I look at programming languages, then my impression is that those languages that make the exchange of software simple are more successful than those that do not. Historically it has always been possible to exchange APL software from one interpreter to another, but it was never easy. Most of the code can be exchanged via .ATF files, but the problems were often tiny incompatibilities. These incompatibilities are spread all over the code, so getting some APL workspace to work on a different machine is still an adventure. That is why I prefer to stick to the ISO standard, no matter how bad it is. As long as you use only standardised APL functions you have very few compatibility problems. There are some, but they are well known. But every new function that is not standardised moves you away from portability. If I object to implementing some new function than this is not for political reasons, but because I am afraid that the additional incompatibility makes the exchange of APL software more difficult. In some cases the function is so important that the incompatibility has to be accepted. Examples for that are certainly ⎕SQL, ⎕FIO, and maybe dyadic ⎕CR and ⎕DLX. These functions are almost impossible to implement efficiently by APL's own means. On the other end (from my point of view) we have things like the KEY function. I still believe that it rather fits into the FinAPL Idiom Library than into GNU APL. It is shorter than one APL line and if you make it an idiom then it remains portable between all APL interpreters while otherwise it is only portable between GNU APL and Dyalog APL. I am open to implementing a feature if it is really useful, but only then. Becoming a leader in implementing new feature is not one of my priorities. There are enough other APLs that are keen on that (e.g. Dyalog and NARS, see http://www.nars2000.org). The ambition of GNU APL has always been to become a stable standard interpreter some day. That is difficult enough, and we have learned from PL/I how too many features can kill a language. And I have seen too many software projects that failed due to being overly ambitious. I simply do not want to share their fate. Regarding emacs, I can't help to note that I am not using it, because it is, for my taste, too complex. I rather prefer something simpler like vi. Sometimes less is just more. Best Regards, /// Jürgen On 07/03/2017 04:00 PM, Elias Mårtenson wrote: Hello Jürgen, and thanks for your thorough reply. In terms of the usefulness of Key, I don't disagree with you. I'd certainly like to see even more flexible solutions. Where we do disagree is what the goal of free software is. Arguably there are probably as many goals as there are people. What follows below is an explanation as to why I disagree with your assessment as to what is the best for Free Software. Please don't take it as personal criticism. You know that I have the deepest respect for you as the maintainer and author of GNU APL. After spending quite some time on the Emacs Development mailing list, I have learned quite a bit about what the FSF's goals are with regards to what they call "Free Software". Time and time again, RMS has stated that the goal of GNU is to make people use commercial software less. In order words, if a project can implement a feature that draws people away from commercial software towards Free Software, then that is what the project should do. At this point, I'd like to clarify that I am not completely in agreement with RMS on this. In the Emacs project, this position has prevented Emacs from gaining certain important features, simply because they would have made it easier to use "non-free" software together with Emacs. This is a position I don't agree with. I'd really like to see GNU APL become a leader in implementing new features. That way perhaps we get more people to switch. The point I'm making here is that by implementing useful features that would make people choose GNU APL before any alternative, then the project would better serve the GNU goals.  Regards, Elias On 3 July 2017 at 21:36, Juergen Sauermann <juergen.sauerm...@t-online.de> wrote: Hi Elias, thaks. The explanation is a bit clearer but the problems remain. Key is a non-standard APL function and we should be careful with the implementation of non-standard functions. Every function in GNU APL is an invitation to use it. If the function is obviously useful then it improves the language. If it merely solves a particular programming case, then it may improve GNU APL a little,  but at the price of incompatibility. Programs using it become less portable and that undermines the goal of free software. So the question in such cases is how useful is a function and is that usefulness worth the incompatibility? In the case of the key function I would say no. First of all the key function can only be used if the data it operates on is organized in a specific way: that the first column is the key. That may be the case but the fact that this is needed is somewhat contrary to how other APL function work. You could also call that arbitrary. That goal can easily  achieved by other means. If I have a single KEY then something along the lines of ((DATA[1;]≡KEY)⌿KEY)[1;] will give me the first row (or all rows if I remove the right [1;]) in an array that has that KEY. I suppose that is more or less what the key function does (plus applying some function on that _expression_). The _expression_ is even superior to a function because it can be used at the left side of an assignment. If that is so then the key function is only one of several APL idioms (see http://aplwiki.com/FinnAplIdiomLibrary for a rather famous list of more than 700 such idioms). Each of the 700+  idioms is useful and would deserver its own symbol, but if we would do so (which is technically possible due to Unicode) then we would have turned GNU APL into an unreadable mess. Best Regards, Jürgen Sauermann On 07/03/2017 05:50 AM, Elias Mårtenson wrote: The key function is better described in the Dyalog reference manual, on page 153 here: http://docs.dyalog.com/16.0/Dyalog%20APL%20Language%20Reference%20Guide.pdf Essentially, it's a grouping function. It's used to create groups of similar things, and apply a function on the individual instances. The examples in the section I referenced above should be pretty clear, I think. Regards, Elias On 3 July 2017 at 00:51, Juergen Sauermann <juergen.sauerm...@t-online.de> wrote: Hi Elias, I am not quite in favour of it and it has problems. It is not on my keyboard (even though I am using a Dyalog keyboard). Not to talk about other keyboards. It does not really look like need-to-have function and I suppose it can be efficiently performed by a short combination of other APL primitives. In my opinion adding primitives for every imaginable use case (and there are certainly use cases for the key function) leads to an overloading of the APL language in the long run and does not improve the language. Another problem is that after reading the description several times, I still can't explain in simple terms what the function is actually doing.  That makes it a good candidate for a never used function if it should ever be implemented. Best Regards, Jürgen Sauermann On 07/02/2017 06:24 PM, Elias Mårtenson wrote: How about implementing the key function, ⌸? It's described in this article on the Dyalog site: https://www.dyalog.com/blog/2015/04/exploring-key/ Jürgen, are you in favour of this function? Regards, Elias