Hi Jay,
yes, what I meant is that / is called like a dyadic function as in
1 1 1 / 1 2 3.
But handling it always like an operator could be a better solution.
Currently in GNU APL operators are distinguished from functions
which works well
On 25 November 2014 at 14:06, Jay Foad wrote:
> On 25 November 2014 at 13:38, Juergen Sauermann
> wrote:
>> I have read the IBM binding rules a number of times but they seem not to
>> help. The problem of these rules is
>> that they give different results in the cases where / is an operator and
>
On 25 November 2014 at 13:38, Juergen Sauermann
wrote:
> I have read the IBM binding rules a number of times but they seem not to
> help. The problem of these rules is
> that they give different results in the cases where / is an operator and
> where / is a function.
In IBM APL2 / is always an op
Hi Elias,
this is caused by an ambiguity of / (or ⌿, \. or ⍀ for that
matter). These four
APL symbols can, unfortunately, be dyadic functions or monadic
operators.
Your example boils down to this:
A←1 2 3 4 5
