I agree in part. My opinion is that all of these problems would be solvable
if immediate lambdas required an explicit function call to be evaluated.
I.e. {⍵} 1 should not evaluate to 1, but rather the function itself and the
number one. Then, having a separate symbol to force evaluation.
Sadly, this is not the case, of course,so the above is just me dreaming. :-)
That said, I believe that lambdas should be extended to become more
"functional" and generic. This includes lexical closures as well as proper
first-class functions. To do so, however, would require first looking at
how other APL's do it, as there is no reason to reinvent the wheel. Also,
there are more important things to do first. :-)
Regards,
Elias
On 29 Jul 2014 20:48, "Juergen Sauermann" <juergen.sauerm...@t-online.de>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have put the power operator onto my long-term TODO list (aka
> README-4-compliance), SVN 402.
>
> BTW the somewhat unexpected behavior of your niladic functions comes from
> the IMHO broken syntax
> of the rank operator (which allows values where unaware people would
> expect functions). Before that
> your right lambda would have returned a value and the SEL would have
> triggered a syntax error.
>
> My concern in the context of lambdas is that if we drive that too far then
> we would create new cases
> that nobody can understand anymore.
>
> /// Jürgen
>
>
> On 07/29/2014 02:11 PM, Elias Mårtenson wrote:
>
> Hmm, so having a right-hand nildaic function passed to an operator simply
> doesn't work. Oh well, makes sense once you think about it. :-)
>
> This was all part of experimentation I was playing around with while
> thinking about the power operator. Have you given that one any thought yet?
>
> Regards,
> Elias
>
>
> On 29 July 2014 19:55, Juergen Sauermann <juergen.sauerm...@t-online.de>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Elias,
>>
>> this is because your lambdas are niladic. The right lambda is called
>> before SEL,
>> while the left lambda is called by SEL. From SEL's perspective, 'then';
>> is a function
>> while 'else' is a value.
>>
>> /// Jürgen
>>
>>
>>
>> On 07/29/2014 07:21 AM, Elias Mårtenson wrote:
>>
>> I was writing an operator that acts as an "if"-statement, calling one
>> of two functions depending on the value of the argument:
>>
>> ∇Z ← (then SEL else) arg
>> →(arg=1)/do¯then
>> →(arg=0)/do¯else
>> ⎕ES 'Illegal value for arg'
>> →0
>> do¯then:
>> Z ← then arg
>> →0
>> do¯else:
>> Z ← else arg
>> ∇
>>
>> Note that the then and else functions are called with an argument
>> "arg". When I call this operator with two nihilic lambda functions, I get
>> very strange behaviour:
>>
>> * ⊣ ({⎕←'was true'} SEL {⎕←'was false'}) 0*
>> was false
>> * ⊣ ({⎕←'was true'} SEL {⎕←'was false'}) 1*
>> was false
>> was true
>>
>> I would expect to get an error message here, or perhaps seeing (⎕NC '⍵')
>> to be 0. I certainly didn't expect to see both functions be called. My
>> suspicion is that there is a problem with the parser somewhere, but I think
>> Jürgen will have to look at this one.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Elias
>>
>>
>>
>
>
