Re: [Bug-apl] Another problem with direct-functions

Hi, yes. fixed in SVN 142. /// Jürgen On 02/21/2014 10:04 PM, baruc...@gmx.com wrote: Is this another bug: R ← { ⍵ }¨⍳15 works in Dyalog APL and NGN APL but not in GNU APL. Regards,

Re: [Bug-apl] More "Mismatched free() / delete / delete []" valgrind errors

Hi Fred, thanks, fixed in SVN 140. /// Jürgen On 02/21/2014 03:18 AM, Frederick H. Pitts wrote: Gentle people, In Gnu APL file file_io.cc, lines 597, 617, and 643, `[]' should be inserted between the `delete' and `del' to match the `new char [ bytes ... ]' on lines 591, 612, and 636,

Re: [Bug-apl] Problems with shared variables

Nice. If that's done there is really no need to have a notification for it in Emacs. Thanks. Regards, Elias On 24 February 2014 22:34, Juergen Sauermann wrote: > Hi, > > I believe )MORE should somehow be aligned with the display of other errors. > The theory seems to be that when an error occu

[Bug-apl] No ubuntu packages

Also, may be interested in contributing on non-core stuff. I am thinking of starting a basic gnu apl calculator program in QT. Thanks; I am really excited about this language.

Re: [Bug-apl] Dyadic / (replicate) does not work with ¨ (each)

In IBM APL2, / ⌿ \ ⍀ are always operators: 3/4 ⍝ 3 is the left operand; derived function 3/ is applied monadically to the argument 4 4 4 4 1 1 0/¨'GNU' 'APL' ⍝ derived function 1 1 0/ applied to each of 'GNU' and 'APL' GN AP ... so you can't use /¨ in the way that you expected; in pr

Re: [Bug-apl] Problems with shared variables

Hi, I believe )MORE should somehow be aligned with the display of other errors. The theory seems to be that when an error occurs then a rather rigidly formatted, 3-line error output is produced: VALUE ERROR a+5 ^ Line 1 is the name of the error, line 2 the offending input and line

Re: [Bug-apl] Bug when assigning variable to result of function call on self

Hi Elias, yes. Fixed in SVN 137. /// Jürgen On 02/21/2014 04:02 AM, Elias Mårtenson wrote: On 20 February 2014 17:24, Kacper Gutowski > wrote: In this function, next is 2 (a label) rather than function you defined earlier. So you literally have [3] S←2 S.