Hi Louis, I believe the problem is not finding useful applications for the not yet exploited valence variants of APL primitives. Every such extension of the APL syntax creates a new incompatibility and should be avoided in the first place. If I remember correctly then there was only one case so far where a primitive in GNU APL was extended beyond what IBM APL2 provides: monadic ⍳ for higher ranks (taken from Dyalog APL). That extension was actually simplifying APL because it was removing a historical limitation of monadic ⍳ and made it more general. Using ↓ for ¯1↑ is, IMHO, not entirely convincing and could confuse people more than it helps. Best Regards, /// Jürgen On 10/10/2017 08:06 PM, Louis de
Forcrand wrote:
Since the subject has been brought up, how about using it as the analog of first (monadic take), but instead unboxing the last element of an array in ravel order? |
- [Bug-apl] Monadic form of ↓ Elias Mårtenson
- Re: [Bug-apl] Monadic form of ↓ Jay Foad
- Re: [Bug-apl] Monadic form of ↓ Elias Mårtenson
- Re: [Bug-apl] Monadic form of ↓ Jay Foad
- Re: [Bug-apl] Monadic form of ↓ Elias Mårtenson
- Re: [Bug-apl] Monadic form of ↓ Juergen Sauermann
- Re: [Bug-apl] Monadic form of ↓ Louis de Forcrand
- Re: [Bug-apl] Monadic form of ↓ Juergen Sauermann
- Re: [Bug-apl] Monadic form of ... Blake McBride