Dear Juergen,
I couldn't agree with you more. Of course, the wacky way it does work is
very convenient. →'' has always meant do not branch, so perhaps no
solution ends up doing what you'd almost always want. →N is contradictory,
I agree.
Thanks a lot for making the change!
Blake
On Wed, Ju
Hi Blake,
I changed GNU APL to behave like IBM APL2, see SVN 320.
I actually believe that the behavior shown by IBM APL2 is not very
consistent.
In my opinion continuation of a stopped function should be →'' or →⍬ and
not →N.
The problem with →N is that now →N in a function behaves differently
It doesn't allow continuation of a stop:
GNU APL:
∇test
[1] '1'
[2] '2'
[3] '3'
[4] '4'
[5] ∇
test
1
2
3
4
S∆test←3
test
1
2
test[3]
→3
test[3]
The branch to 3 should have caused the continuation of the program.
IBM APL 2:
∇TEST
[1] '1'
[2] '2'
[3] '3'
[4]
Hi Blake,
thanks, fixed in SVN 316.
/// Jürgen
On 06/02/2014 02:20 AM, Blake McBride wrote:
Just offering an opinion -
Since APL trace and stop are quite useful, and are part of the
standard, my opinion is that these should be top priority - second
only to bug fixes. These should come bef
Just offering an opinion -
Since APL trace and stop are quite useful, and are part of the standard, my
opinion is that these should be top priority - second only to bug fixes.
These should come before work on enhancements or fixes to extensions.
Thanks.
Blake
