Point taken, and I have no intention to fight for this one right now. :-)
Just to answer your question: ⍵⍵⍵ would refer to the outer-outer lambda,
which ⍵⍵ would raise an error. The same goes for ⍶, ⍹ and χ. I'd say it's
hard to argue for any other variant.
That said, the workaround by assigning
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
On 10 July 2014 08:03, Kacper Gutowski wrote:
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.
>
This is exactly my concern.
> Using ⍵⍵ might be confusing for Dyalog users where ⍺⍺ and ⍵⍵ are used
> as
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
wrote:
> Hi Elias,
>
> that would be very easy to implement:
>
>
>
> * { ⍵ + { ⍵ × OUTER_OMEGA } 10 ⊣ OUTER_OMEGA←⍵ } 100 1100 *
> /// Jürgen
>
>
>
> On 07/09/2014 10
Note that this would conflict with the use of ⍺⍺ and ⍵⍵ in NARS2000
and Dyalog, where they refer to the operands of a defined operator.
With three levels of nested lambdas would you also want to be able to
use ⍵⍵⍵ in the innermost one, to refer to the value of ⍵ in the
outermost one, and so on?
J
On 9 July 2014 18:08, Jay Foad wrote:
Note that this would conflict with the use of ⍺⍺ and ⍵⍵ in NARS2000
> and Dyalog, where they refer to the operands of a defined operator.
>
Yes, but those are called ⍹ and ⍶ on GNU APL, which makes more sense.
> With three levels of nested lambdas would yo
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
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> actually - no. I called it OUTER_OMEGA to make clear what it does.
> Maybe yo
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
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, Jue
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.
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
11 matches
Mail list logo
