Hello Jürgen, and thanks for your thorough reply. In terms of the usefulness of Key, I don't disagree with you. I'd certainly like to see even more flexible solutions.
Where we do disagree is what the goal of free software is. Arguably there are probably as many goals as there are people. What follows below is an explanation as to why I disagree with your assessment as to what is the best for Free Software. Please don't take it as personal criticism. You know that I have the deepest respect for you as the maintainer and author of GNU APL. After spending quite some time on the Emacs Development mailing list, I have learned quite a bit about what the FSF's goals are with regards to what they call "Free Software". Time and time again, RMS has stated that the goal of GNU is to make people use commercial software less. In order words, if a project can implement a feature that draws people away from commercial software towards Free Software, then that is what the project should do. At this point, I'd like to clarify that I am not completely in agreement with RMS on this. In the Emacs project, this position has prevented Emacs from gaining certain important features, simply because they would have made it easier to use "non-free" software together with Emacs. This is a position I don't agree with. I'd really like to see GNU APL become a leader in implementing new features. That way perhaps we get more people to switch. The point I'm making here is that by implementing useful features that would make people choose GNU APL before any alternative, then the project would better serve the GNU goals. Regards, Elias On 3 July 2017 at 21:36, Juergen Sauermann <juergen.sauerm...@t-online.de> wrote: > Hi Elias, > > thaks. The explanation is a bit clearer but the problems remain. > > Key is a non-standard APL function and we should be careful with the > implementation > of non-standard functions. > > Every function in GNU APL is an invitation to use it. If the function is > obviously useful then it improves > the language. If it merely solves a particular programming case, then it > may improve GNU APL a little, > but at the price of incompatibility. Programs using it become less > portable and that undermines the > goal of free software. > > So the question in such cases is how useful is a function and is that > usefulness worth the incompatibility? > > In the case of the key function I would say no. > > First of all the key function can only be used if the data it operates on > is organized in a specific way: that > the first column is the key. That may be the case but the fact that this > is needed is somewhat contrary to > how other APL function work. You could also call that arbitrary. > > That goal can easily achieved by other means. If I have a single *KEY* > then something along the lines of > > *((DATA[1;]≡KEY)⌿KEY)[1;]* > > will give me the first row (or all rows if I remove the right [1;]) in an > array that has that KEY. I suppose that is > more or less what the key function does (plus applying some function on > that expression). The expression is > even superior to a function because it can be used at the left side of an > assignment. > > If that is so then the key function is only one of several APL idioms (see > http://aplwiki.com/FinnAplIdiomLibrary > for a rather famous list of more than 700 such idioms). Each of the 700+ > idioms is useful and would deserver > its own symbol, but if we would do so (which is technically possible due > to Unicode) then we would have turned > GNU APL into an unreadable mess. > > Best Regards, > Jürgen Sauermann > > > > > On 07/03/2017 05:50 AM, Elias Mårtenson wrote: > > The key function is better described in the Dyalog reference manual, on > page 153 here: http://docs.dyalog.com/16.0/Dyalog%20APL%20Language% > 20Reference%20Guide.pdf > > Essentially, it's a grouping function. It's used to create groups of > similar things, and apply a function on the individual instances. The > examples in the section I referenced above should be pretty clear, I think. > > Regards, > Elias > > On 3 July 2017 at 00:51, Juergen Sauermann <juergen.sauerm...@t-online.de> > wrote: > >> Hi Elias, >> >> I am not quite in favour of it and it has problems. >> >> It is not on my keyboard (even though I am using a Dyalog keyboard). >> Not to talk about other keyboards. >> >> It does not really look like need-to-have function and I suppose it can be >> efficiently performed by a short combination of other APL primitives. >> >> In my opinion adding primitives for every imaginable use case (and >> there are certainly use cases for the key function) leads to an >> overloading >> of the APL language in the long run and does not improve the language. >> >> Another problem is that after reading the description several times, I >> still >> can't explain in simple terms what the function is actually doing. That >> makes it >> a good candidate for a never used function if it should ever be >> implemented. >> >> Best Regards, >> Jürgen Sauermann >> >> >> >> >> On 07/02/2017 06:24 PM, Elias Mårtenson wrote: >> >> How about implementing the key function, ⌸? >> >> It's described in this article on the Dyalog site: >> https://www.dyalog.com/blog/2015/04/exploring-key/ >> >> Jürgen, are you in favour of this function? >> >> Regards, >> Elias >> >> >> > >
