Re: [Bug-apl] Trace & stop control

[Juergen Sauermann]

Hi Blake,

I changed GNU APL to behave like IBM APL2, see SVN 320.
I actually believe that the behavior shown by IBM APL2 is not very 
consistent.
In my opinion continuation of a stopped function should be →'' or →⍬ and 
not →N.
The problem with →N is that now →N in a function behaves differently (it 
stops) than →N
from immediate execution (doesn't stop).

But compatibility rules.

/// Jürgen


On 06/10/2014 06:26 PM, Blake McBride wrote:
It doesn't allow continuation of a stop:

GNU APL:

      ∇test
[1] '1'
[2] '2'
[3] '3'
[4] '4'
[5] ∇
      test
1
2
3
4
      S∆test←3
      test
1
2
test[3]
      →3
test[3]

The branch to 3 should have caused the continuation of the program.


IBM APL 2:

      ∇TEST
[1] '1'
[2] '2'
[3] '3'
[4] '4'
[5] ∇
      TEST
1
2
3
4
      S∆TEST←3
      TEST
1
2
TEST[3]
      →3
3
4
      )SI
      TEST
1
2
TEST[3]



Thanks.

Blake




On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 12:53 PM, Juergen Sauermann 
<juergen.sauerm...@t-online.de <mailto:juergen.sauerm...@t-online.de>> 
wrote:

    Hi Blake,

    thanks, fixed in SVN 316.

    /// Jürgen



    On 06/02/2014 02:20 AM, Blake McBride wrote:

        Just offering an opinion -

        Since APL trace and stop are quite useful, and are part of the
        standard, my opinion is that these should be top priority -
        second only to bug fixes.  These should come before work on
        enhancements or fixes to extensions.

        Thanks.

        Blake