bug-apl
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [Bug-apl] update for the help.def


From: Juergen Sauermann
Subject: Re: [Bug-apl] update for the help.def
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 21:01:16 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0

Hi Louis,

I am not at all a J programmer, but I remember that in old APL the 'and' was purely boolean (giving
a domain error as well if the arguments were not 0 or 1), but the ISO standard for extended APL then
allowed non-boolean arguments as well (and the result is then the least common multiple (aka. LCM)
 of the arguments).

I suppose that J is still behaving like the old APL for dyadic &. No idea, though what monadic & does in J, it seems
to have a meaning there? Or was it the !!! that cause the error? One more reason to use APL.

/// Jürgen


On 04/27/2017 07:49 PM, Louis de Forcrand wrote:
Jürgen,

At first I thought I had been doing it wrong all these years, and that now I finally had seen the light, but in J:

   1, 2, 3 & 4!!!
|domain error
|   1,2,    3&4!!!
   1, 2, 3, & 4!!!
1 , 2 , 3 ,&4 ! ! !

What are we going to do???

Louis

On 27 Apr 2017, at 13:44, Juergen Sauermann <address@hidden> wrote:

Hi,

the Oxford Comma is definitely broken because 'and' is dyadic:

      1, 2, 3, ∧ 4
VALENCE ERROR
      1,2,3,∧4
            ^

      1, 2, 3 ∧ 4
1 2 12


/// Jürgen


On 04/26/2017 04:29 PM, address@hidden wrote:
http://www.theonion.com/americanvoices/oxford-comma-wins-court-case-workers-55578


On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 16:25:52 +0200
Juergen Sauermann <address@hidden> wrote:

Hi,

this sentence is the verbatim copy of the phrase proposed in https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt
 (chapter 17) and I do not feel like criticising the GNU project for their spelling.

/// Jürgen


On 04/22/2017 12:28 AM, address@hidden wrote:


Thanks you guys doing this )help is really appreciated    - maybe I can make a contribution too

line 13        but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of             ; -> ,   for oxford comma?

references :

https://www.grammarly.com/blog/what-is-the-oxford-comma-and-why-do-people-care-so-much-about-it/

http://www.necn.com/news/new-england/Missing-Comma-Could-Cost-Maine-Company-Millions-416458593.html





On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 23:01:01 +0200
Alexey Veretennikov <address@hidden> wrote:

Hi,

Sure here it is. Don't expect anything big in it - it is just a couple
of lines of text.







reply via email to

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