bug-apl
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Bug-apl] Question about GNU APL


From: Blake McBride
Subject: Re: [Bug-apl] Question about GNU APL
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 07:28:40 -0600

On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 7:10 AM, Juergen Sauermann <address@hidden> wrote:
Hi Christian,

see my answers inline below...

/// Jürgen


On 02/19/2015 03:10 AM, Christian Robert wrote:
...

how hard is it to implement the standard/or-not-as-standard-as-it-seems

:if {boolean}
  do this
:else
  do that
:endif

:repeat
  do this
:until {boolean}

:for {var} :in {list}
  do this
:endfor

:forlcl {var} :in {list}
  do this
:endforlcl

I think there is a :while :endwhile  too


thoses are really missing (to my point of view).


1. those things are probably not very hard to implement. However:

2. I try to minimize non-standard extensions of GNU APL because every such extension
    creates incompatibilities of APL programs that are using them. My idea of free software
    is that not only GNU APL itself should be free but also APL programs running on GNU APL.
    And for a free APL program to be useful it is important that is is portable between different APL interpreters.
 

I agree with Juergen.  The structures you suggest (although I would add a 'while') make a lot of sense, but so would a lot of other things. There are many single-source, non-standard, hodgepodge languages out there that few are interested in.  APL is APL.  It is what it is, and it has proven itself valuable as it is.  GNU APL's full support of APL2, along with its keyed file system, make GNU APL a very powerful and proven standard.  Adding a bunch of hodgepodge extensions would ruin it.

Just one opinion.

Blake McBride



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]