Interesting. Given the following definition of pp:
∇Z←X pp Y
⎕←'comparing'
⎕←' X=' (8⎕CR X)
⎕←' Y=' (8⎕CR Y)
Z←X≡Y
∇
I get the following output:
*(⊂'foo') pp¨ (,⊂'foo')*
comparing
X= ┌─┐
│┌→──┐│
││foo││
│└───┘│
└∊┘
Y= ┌→
GNU APL:
(⊂'myfile')≡¨⊂'myfile'
1
(⊂'myfile')≡¨,⊂'myfile'
0
IBM APL 2 returns 1 in both cases. I had a vector I was using. I got one
result when I had 2 or more elements, and another result when there was
only one element - even though it was still a vector. IBM's result is
consi
I like this idea a lot. Having the comment inside the function allows you
to edit the text when using the Emacs function editor. If the comment is
outside, it won't be part of the function per se.
Secondly, as David pointed out, one can already access the comment from APL
if it is inside the funct
Common Lisp has doc strings as part of the language definition. There's
a mechanism defined as part of the language to read the doc string and
stash it in the function definition so that the appropriate access
functions can find it.
There's really no equivalent to this in APL. A function definion
x←⎕ES''
works on GNU APL. It gives a VALUE ERROR in IBM APL 2. ⎕ES should not
return a value.
Thanks.
Blake
On 2014-07-14 00:01:13, Elias Mårtenson wrote:
> Most modern (and some not-so-modern) languages have a standard way of
> attaching
> documentation to functions and other symbols.
(...)
I think the most natural way to describe a function is simply by
starting function *body* with a comment:
∇ Z←
Hi,
sorry for answering that late, but I was busy with a major restructuring
of GNU APL (APserver/shared variables).
That created a bit of an headache but is looking fine now.
Blake has asked for my opinion earlier. I am not really a database
specialist though.
The last database I worked with
GNU APL:
)CLEAR
CLEAR WS
∇test
[1] '⎕ES''Hello'''⎕EA'3÷0'
[2] ∇
test
Hello
'⎕ES'Hello'' ⎕EA '3÷0'
^^
IBM APL 2:
)CLEAR
CLEAR WS
∇TEST
[1] '⎕ES''HELLO'''⎕EA'3÷0'
[2] ∇
TEST
HELLO
TEST
^^
The error message shown
And here I am, replying to myself instead of actually thinking through
everything before posting. Oh well...
I'd say that I personally prefer the last form. The reason for that is that
this actually translates to one-line lambda functions quite nicely. Here's
the one-line version of the last examp
Most modern (and some not-so-modern) languages have a standard way of
attaching documentation to functions and other symbols. For example, in
Java documentation looks like this:
*/***
* * Example method that adds 1 to its argument. The documentation*
* * is a normal comment that comes
10 matches
Mail list logo
