I am not sure if tacit <==> lambdas <==> direct definition. See appendix B in <https://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~jzhu/csc326/readings/iverson.pdf> also <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_M._Scholes>
> On Feb 24, 2021, at 4:12 PM, edxmail-jo...@usa.net wrote: > > With attachment...... > > > ------ Original Message ------ > Received: 01:09 PM PST, 02/24/2021 > From: edxmail-jo...@usa.net > To: Russtopia <rma...@gmail.com>, <bug-apl@gnu.org> > Subject: Re: GNU APL versus 'tacit' style > > > Welcome Russ, > > APL2, the language, is standardized in ISO standard 13751. The mischief you > are experiencing is non-standard extensions. > > I'm unsure what you mean by "tacit style"... indeed style is a very > subjective topic and therefore WAY above my pay grade. > > There are lot's of excellent on-line resources including a comprehensive FAQ > <http://www.faqs.org/faqs/apl-faq/> and idiom libraries. I've attached one by > IBM' most of the idioms are language independent and the ones that aren't > shouldn't be hard to identify. > > APL2 was not designed to be a pure functional language, so it doesn't have > lambdas or closures. The language originated as a notation to simplify tensor > algebra by Kenneth Iverson at IBM; it was subsequently implemented as an > interpreted language. Believe it or not, Iverson wrote a high school algebra > text--all in APL notation. Needless to say, it's pedigree is completely > different from that of LISP and its dependents. This said, closures and > lambdas are pretty handy; but, because they are extensions to the ISO > standard language, the correct spelling for them is "vendor lock-in". > > Back in the early years APL came with an excellent tutorial, but to the best > of my knowledge this practice has "devolved". A good book to get you started > is APL2 by Brown, et. al.--but to my shock and horror it's stratospherically > expensive... maybe there is some introductory stuff on-line... > > Good luck. > > /John > > > ------ Original Message ------ > Received: 12:31 PM PST, 02/24/2021 > From: Russtopia <rma...@gmail.com> > To: bug-apl@gnu.org > Subject: GNU APL versus 'tacit' style > > > What is the general consensus among GNU APL users here on the newer 'tacit > style' that seems so prevalent in many online APL resources nowadays? > ('forks', 'trains', etc.) > > As a new, inexperienced APLer, exploring a bit more with GNU APL, I wonder if > it discourages people new to APL to find, as I have, that so many resources > online appear to be quite Dyalog-focused so the examples do not work as > presented within GNU APL. > > I am aware that GNU APL is an 'APL2' implementation for the most part, which > is fine by itself and I think it is important to have this open-source, free > implementation. However it concerns me somewhat that newcomers to GNU APL may > be discouraged to find so many examples online that are incompatible. > > Perhaps if I were myself experienced enough, I would write a GNU APL > equivalent to the 'APL cart' (aplcart.info <http://aplcart.info/>) with a > focus on translating common idioms from 'tacit style' to APL2 style. (Indeed, > perhaps such resources exist and I apologize if I have merely not encountered > them yet. I have yet to study in-depth the older 'Finn APL idiom library' and > similar). > > As for adding tacit style to GNU APL, I do not advocate one way or the other, > as I do not have sufficient experience for an informed opinion. How much > value would the 'tacit' syntax bring to GNU APL? Would it even be possible to > add without breaking APL2 conformance? > > I also see a lot of usage online of 'guards' within lambdas which GNU APL > seems to lack -- would the language benefit from adding support for that or > would many of you say it is just 'syntactic sugar'? > > Just some thoughts from an APL newcomer. I enjoy it, and am grateful to Dr. > Sauermann et al. for their hard work. > > -Russ > > > > > > <APL2IDIOMS.pdf>
