I don't quite understand what the actual problem is.
I tested your files fns.c and fns.enz.
Everything looks more or less fine, but I noticed e.g.:
apl_exec("∇f1")
which produces:
SYNTAX ERROR+
Tokenizer: No token for Unicode U+2207 (∇)
Input: ∇f1
As a matter of fact, the ∇ which opens the Nable editor is
being detected and processed before the tokenizer is invoked
and therefore the tokenizer will never see it (and complain
as above when it does). The ∇-editor is a purely interactive
feature not intended to be used in libapl. I suppose (since I
haven't written libapl) that input chain looks roughly like this:
┌───────┐
│ input │
└───────┘
↓
┌─────┐
┌←yes←←│ ∇ ? │→→no→→┐
↓ └─────┘ ↓
┌────────┐ ┌────────────┐
│ Nabla │ │ apl_exec() │
│ editor │ └────────────┘
└────────┘ ↓
┌───────────┐
│ Tokenizer │
└───────────┘
Instead of messing around with the ∇-editor you should:
1. take your function lines (header and body lines),
2. quote them so that the lines are valid APL literals,
3. concatenate all quoted lines, separated with a blank,
4. prefix the entrie beast with ⎕FX (unquoted).
5. call apl_exec().
See my previous email for an example. I did the concatenation
in steps 2.-4. in APL to simplify the example, but you can easily do
the same in C/C++ before calling apl_exec().
Best Regards,
Jürgen
On 3/7/23 7:01 PM, enz...@gmx.com
wrote:
Thanks Jürgen, I'd like to keep the situation i gave in my post using the ')copy fns.enz' method as i do fns developement first in the apl ws then test it with apl scripting then to the libapl program and using the apl_exec method you gave would not be practicle.could you give it an analysis as i think this is a bug and fixing it would be a real plus to the apl/scripting/libapl system thanks enztec On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 16:28:26 +0100 Dr. Jürgen Sauermann <m...@xn--jrgen-sauermann-zvb.de> wrote:Hi enztec, see below. On 3/6/23 9:31 PM, enz...@gmx.com wrote: Hi it doesn't seem possible to create apl fns with apl_command or apl_exec directly using libapl This premiss seems wrong: #include <apl/libapl.h> // compile with: gcc libapl_test.c -L /usr/local/lib/apl -lapl -lstdc++ -o libapl_test int main(int argc, char * argv[]) { init_libapl(argv[0], 0); apl_exec( "TEXT ← ⊂ 'Z←A SUM B'" ); apl_exec( "TEXT ← TEXT, ⊂ 'Z←A + B'" ); apl_exec( "⎕FX TEXT" ); apl_command( ")FNS" ); apl_exec( "'⎕CR SUM:' (⎕CR 'SUM')" ); apl_exec( "1 SUM 2" ); } which produces: eedjsa@server68:~/apl-1.8/src$ ./libapl_test SUM ⎕CR SUM: Z←A SUM B Z←A + B 3 Or, even shorter: apl_exec( "⎕FX 'Z←A SUM B' 'Z←A + B'"); On 3/6/23 9:31 PM, enz...@gmx.com wrote: Hi it doesn't seem possible to create apl fns with apl_command or apl_exec directly using libapl but i can successfully create a llibapl environment with fns and variables with the following setup and workaround - 2 files fns.enz and fns.c -- situation 1 : shows good fns created from fns.enz /usr/local/bin/apl fns.enz in apl workspace run f1 f2 not created if it's fns definition header is commented in fns.enz but is created if uncommented -- situation 2 : /usr/local/bin/apl in apl workspace run )copy fns.enz f1 f2 not created if it's fns definition header is commented in fns.enz but is created if uncommented -- situation 3 : g++ -O2 fns.c -o fns -L /usr/local/lib/apl -lapl ./fns gives my output below and creates fns1.xml fns2.xml and fns3.xml that can hopefully be of use for analysis of what is happening in fns.c i can use apl_command(")copy fns.enz"); or apl_exec(")copy fns.enz"); with the fns definition header workaround to get working fns f1 and f2 but without the f1 and f2 fns definition headers in fns.c i get no f1 or f2 created in the fns.enz ∇f1 and ∇f2 fns definition headers don't work as would hope/expect without the f1 and f2 function definition workaround in fns.c as you can see in the fns.c after the )copy fns.enz if i do a workaround apl_exec("∇f1"); i get good fns f1 and f2 it seems the ∇f1 fns header doesn't work but the bodies of the fns in fns.enz and closing ∇ are in some 'buffer' and get put into the f1 fns when the f1 function header definitions workarounds is done in fns.c the interesting thing is is that if i comment the f1 fns definition header in the fns.enz the fns are still created by the corresponding workaround line in fns.c but if i leave it uncommented (which is what it would be if it worked) when i run the correspinding fns header workaround in fns.c it gives the syntax error when run but doesn't prevent it from creating the good f1 fns - so it seems the f1 function definition header in fns.enz is doing something but not creating the fns. i left the fns.enz f1 function header uncommented and the fns.enz f2 function header commented to show the difference fns f2 is not created in situation 1 or situation 2 if it's fns definition header is commented in fns.enz but commenting does not affect it's creation in situation 3 (libapl) if f2 workaround fns definition header is used in fns.c the correct order of the functions in fns.enz and the corresponding fns headers workarounds must be maintained to get proper working fns with the correct names i have been using this workaround successfully but would love to know what is happening and see if there can be a fix i have added 3 )save commands at 'strategic' points in fns,c to create the fns1.xml fns2.xml and fns3.xml in hope they give some information that can be used to analyze what is happening thanks, enztec --- this is my output from ./fns from libapl situation 3 )wsid IS CLEAR WS )copy fns.enz DUMPED 2023-03-06 12:31:44 (GMT-7) )wsid IS CLEAR WS )wsid fns1 WAS CLEAR WS )save 2023-03-06 13:11:51 (GMT-7) fns1 ∇f1 workaround 1 in fns.c for f1 fns header in fns.enz SYNTAX ERROR+ Tokenizer: No token for Unicode U+2207 (∇) Input: ∇f1 )fns f1 )wsid fns2 WAS fns1 )save 2023-03-06 13:11:51 (GMT-7) fns2 ∇f2 workaround 2 in fns,c for f2 fns header in fns.enz )wsid fns3 WAS fns2 )save 2023-03-06 13:11:51 (GMT-7) fns3 )fns f1 f2 f1 fns executed ⍴⍕1 2 3 : 5 f2 fns executed ⍴⍎"1 2 3" : 3 ---
