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
