|
From: | Juergen Sauermann |
Subject: | Re: [Bug-apl] Extension proposal: ⍵⍵ to access outer lambda |
Date: | Sun, 20 Jul 2014 17:05:13 +0200 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130330 Thunderbird/17.0.5 |
Hi, maybe not that bad but there are complications. First of all: non-standard.Secondly some users have already indicated that we would also need ⍺⍺⍺/⍵⍵⍵, ⍺⍺⍺⍺/⍵⍵⍵⍵, and so forth. But what if some outer lambdas dont have an ⍺? would eg. ⍺⍺⍺ be undefined then
or would ⍺⍺⍺⍺ become ⍺⍺⍺ instead? And how about not-present χ-es?This all together looks rather odd to me. I see more problems than benefits in these cases and would recommend good old standard APL functions instead where all the desired features that are
missing in GNU-APL lambdas are present. /// Jürgen On 07/10/2014 02:03 AM, Kacper Gutowski wrote:
On 2014-07-09 16:14:32, Juergen Sauermann wrote:Hi, actually - no. I called it OUTER_OMEGA to make clear what it does. Maybe you like { ⍵ + {⍵×WW} 10 ⊣ WW←⍵ } 100 1100 imore?I think the main problem isn't the length of variable's name but the fact that regular variable is neither lexically scoped nor localized. Using ⍵⍵ might be confusing for Dyalog users where ⍺⍺ and ⍵⍵ are used as functional arguments of dfn operators. But since GNU APL uses ⍶ and ⍹ for those and it doesn't localize variables in dfns, using repeated ⍺/⍵ for nested arguments doesn't sound that bad. -k
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |