Right. This is one of the few cases where APL2 broke compatibility
with first-generation APL, where 7 8 9[2] was 8.
Personally I think the APL2 way is better, because A[B] C[D] parses as
(A[B])(C[D]). This makes much more sense to me than the Dyalog
parsing, which is ((A[B]) C)[D].
Jay.
On 5 Mar
Hi,
so Dyalog APL behaves differently than IBM APL2.
In such conflict cases GNU APL almost always follows IBM APL2.
/// Jürgen
On 03/05/2016 05:20 PM, Alexey
Veretennikov wrote:
Hi,
I've just checked, Dyalog AP
Hi,
I've just checked, Dyalog APL returns exactly what you are expecting
from it:
2 a[1]
2
b←⍳5
9 8 b
9 8 1 2 3 4 5
9 8 b[2]
8
Elias Mårtenson writes:
> On 5 March 2016 at 19:12, Juergen Sauermann
> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Alexey,
>
> the IBM APL2 binding rules say
On 5 March 2016 at 19:12, Juergen Sauermann
wrote:
> Hi Alexey,
>
> the IBM APL2 binding rules say that [] binds stronger than vector notation
> (IBM APL2
> language reference page 34). That is,
>
> *100 200[1] *is* 100 (200[1])*
>
> IBM APL2 behaves in the same way as GNU APL.
>
At first I wa
Thanks for clarification!
Juergen Sauermann writes:
> Hi Alexey,
>
> the IBM APL2 binding rules say that [] binds stronger than vector notation
> (IBM APL2
> language reference page 34). That is,
>
> 100 200[1] is 100 (200[1])
>
> IBM APL2 behaves in the same way as GNU APL.
>
> /// Jürgen
>
>
Hi Alexey,
the IBM APL2 binding rules say that [] binds stronger than vector
notation (IBM APL2
language reference page 34). That is,
100 200[1] is 100 (200[1])
IBM APL2 behaves in the same way as GNU APL.
/// Jürgen
