On Fri, 27 Aug 2021 at 16:42, Hans-Peter Sorge
wrote:
> I agree.
> I had something like "one depth equals one space" on my mind.
> I guess my brain has to get more flexible on those old days.
>
> What remains is a big THANK YOU for all the good work on GNU APL.
>
I would suggest using ]BOXING 29
Hello Jürgen,
I agree.
I had something like "one depth equals one space" on my mind.
I guess my brain has to get more flexible on those old days.
What remains is a big THANK YOU for all the good work on GNU APL.
Best Regards
Hans-Peter
Am 27.08.21 um 10:30 schrieb Dr. Jürgen Sauermann:
Hi Han
Hi Hans-Peter,
I fully share your view regarding the inconsistency of the cases.
..
However, the more important factor for me is compatibility
(primarily
with IBM APL2, but also others).
In order to make the output more consistent, we wou
Hi,
thank you for your insight.
⍝ However I'm not convinced.
⍝ Comparing expr. 1 (≡ 2)
(⊂1 1)⍴ ¨2 2⍴1
1 1
1 1
⍝ to expr. 2 (≡ 3)
⊂¨(⊂1 1)⍴ ¨2 2⍴1
1 1
1 1
⍝ I would say the 'missing' space line is a bug.
⍝ The additional vertical space in expr. 2 is due to increas
Which was sort of my point: APL/X and GNU APl have almost identical handling to
that of IBM APL2.
i’m sorry if that was not stated clearly enough. The three of them: APL2, GNU
APL and APL/X have almost identical handling of that issue.
Dyalog is clearly the odd man out.
> On Aug 26, 2021, at 1
I would think what APLX or Dialog do is somewhat irrelevant. I believe GNU
APL is treating IBM APL 2 as the standard to be matched.
Blake
On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 12:21 PM Louis Chretien via Bugs and suggestions
for GNU APL wrote:
> I tried the same examples in APL/X and Dyalog APL.
>
> APL/X
I tried the same examples in APL/X and Dyalog APL.
APL/X seems to give the same results as GNU APL: but both enclose are indented
right by one column
But Dyalog APL has quite a different result: no blank lines between rows.
> On Aug 26, 2021, at 12:44, Dr. Jürgen Sauermann
> wrote:
>
> H
Hi again,
checking the same in IBM APL2, the behaviour of GNU APL seems
correct.
(see attached Screenshot).
Best Regards,
Jürgen
On 8/26/21 5:58 PM, Dr. Jürgen
Sauermann wrote:
Hi Hans-
Hi Hans-Peter,
thanks, I will look into this.
The general problem is that the rules how nested values with rank
≥ 2 should
be displayed are, at least as far as I know, nowhere specified in
a formal fashion.
From old APL 1 we know that the
Hi,
⍝ just a simple matrix
i∘.+i←¯1+⍳2
0 1
1 2
⍝ make it an element
⎕ ← e ← ⊂i∘.+i←¯1+⍳2
0 1
1 2
⍝ matrix of matrixes
2 2 ⍴ e
0 1 0 1
1 2 1 2
0 1 0 1
1 2 1 2
⍝ enclose the matrix of matrixes indents nicely ...
⊂ 2 2 ⍴ e
0 1 0 1
1 2 1 2
10 matches
Mail list logo
