I know, and that what I ended up doing. No having to do that at all is,
however, nicer of course.
But, I agree it's not a *necessary* feature.
Regards,
Elias
On 9 July 2014 22:14, Juergen Sauermann <juergen.sauerm...@t-online.de>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> actually - no. I called it OUTER_OMEGA to make clear what it does.
> Maybe you like
>
>
>
> * { ⍵ + {⍵×WW} 10 ⊣ WW←⍵ } 100 1100 *
> imore?
>
>
>
> On 07/09/2014 04:08 PM, Elias Mårtenson wrote:
>
> I know, but it's much more ugly than my proposal, don't you think?
>
> Regards,
> Elias
>
>
> On 9 July 2014 22:06, Juergen Sauermann <juergen.sauerm...@t-online.de>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Elias,
>>
>> that would be very easy to implement:
>>
>>
>>
>> * { ⍵ + { ⍵ × OUTER_OMEGA } 10 ⊣ OUTER_OMEGA←⍵ } 100 1100 *
>> /// Jürgen
>>
>>
>>
>> On 07/09/2014 10:53 AM, Elias Mårtenson wrote:
>>
>> It would be nice to be able to access the values of ⍵ and ⍺ (and I
>> suppose χ) from the outer lambda from a nested lambda.
>>
>> I.e, I'd like to following to return the value 1100:
>>
>> * { ⍵ + {⍵×⍵⍵} 10 } 100*
>>
>> In other words, the ⍵⍵ in the inner lambda would refer to the value 100
>> (i.e. the value of ⍵ in the outer lambda).
>>
>> Would this be easy to implement?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Elias
>>
>>
>>
>
>
