On 6 January 2017 at 13:02, Christian Robert
wrote:
never regret Lambdas, in my opinion, it is the best decision you ever did
> (quite a job on the programmer side). Without it,
> I would be on nars2000 or even paying $$$ for Dyalog
>
I agree with Christian here (even though we disagree wildly o
On 2017-01-04 11:33, Juergen Sauermann wrote:
Hi Xtian,
thank you very much for your proposal. I am not too fond of the idea though.
Not because of the coding effort on my side, but because of other
considerations.
Consider the following syntactical variants of the same thing, and my personal
My FIO function work very well with a number as Axis.
No need to call it with a string as Axis, especially if your interpreter forbid
it.
Xtian.
On 2017-01-05 21:45, Xiao-Yong Jin wrote:
On Jan 5, 2017, at 8:36 PM, Christian Robert
wrote:
First of all, ⎕FIO does not exist in any other AP
> On Jan 5, 2017, at 8:36 PM, Christian Robert
> wrote:
>
> First of all, ⎕FIO does not exist in any other APL interpreter I know of.
> Portability of what ?
Portability of any workspace/package that uses FILE_IO workspace. If you have
a package/workspace that uses FILE_IO workspace, you ca
First of all, ⎕FIO does not exist in any other APL interpreter I know of.
Portability of what ?
Secondly, yes, you are right, strings as axis is not portable at all (outside
of gnuapl).
I'm just trying to make the ⎕FIO less obscure and more user friendly. You can't
blame me for that.
Xtian.
I think the point is portability. Axis notation in function definition
(especially using an character array as an axis) is not in any standard, afaik,
so it's impossible to hack such a function in any other APL implementation. An
workspace/package uses this FIO function wouldn't be able to fun
I see your point, well, I hacked something, some kind of a wrapper around ⎕FIO
who give me *very near* of what I wanted, eg: not to have to copy tenth's of
functions
to be able to call the FIO by name.
∇FIO[⎕]∇
∇
[0] z←L FIO[X] R;a
[1] →(2≠⎕nc 'X')/Noaxis
[2] →(0=↑0⍴X)/Number
[3]
I agree with Juergen.
On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 10:33 AM, Juergen Sauermann <
juergen.sauerm...@t-online.de> wrote:
> Hi Xtian,
>
> thank you very much for your proposal. I am not too fond of the idea
> though.
> Not because of the coding effort on my side, but because of other
> considerations.
>
