a ⍝ should be a comment for all that follows it - the parsing should not
arbritarily decide what follows is executed
is ⍝ '1' executed?
On Fri, 24 Mar 2023 12:37:13 +0100
Dr. Jürgen Sauermann <m...@xn--jrgen-sauermann-zvb.de> wrote:
> On 3/23/23 22:12, enz...@gmx.com wrote:
> > when using )copy in an apl ws (see attached fns.apl) or as an apl script
> > (./fns.apl or apl fns.apl)
> >
> > the ⍝∇ in fns f1 is treated as a ∇ and should give the same results as if
> > it was not there
> No.
>
> *⍝ *starts a comment and *∇* closes the ∇editor. After that:
>
> *∇f1[⎕]∇
> ∇f1[⎕]∇
> ∇
> [0] f1
> [1] 1
> [2] ⍝
> ∇
> *
> If you omit *⍝∇* then
>
> (1) it will not go into the body of *f1*, and
> (2) the ∇-editor will remain open.
no it gives the error
>
> The subsequent *∇f2* is not a valid ∇-editor command (only
> a stand-alone ∇ closes a function), therefore the line is
> passed on to the tokenizer. Which then complains because
> *∇* is not a valid APL token:
> > so now if you actually delete the f1 ⍝∇ you get the syntax error
> >
> > SYNTAX ERROR+
> > Tokenizer: No token for Unicode U+2207 (∇)
> > Input: ∇f2
> >
> > which is also the same error when running )copy in libapl with the
> > apl_exec("∇f1"); line
> >
> > enztec
