On Sat, 2014-05-03 at 15:02 +0200, Juergen Sauermann wrote: > Hi David, > > from what I hear Dyalog APL seems to be a good interpreter and I have no > problem with it. > I am only a little more conservative when it comes to new and > non-standard APL features. > But Peter Teeson had ideas going into a similar direction.
I hope I didn't give the impression that I was casting aspersions on Dyalog. They've taken APL in some new and interesting directions. All I meant is that many of Dyalog's contributions to the language tend to be outside of the canon of ISO/IBM APL 2. > > One question that I have is how the implementation of a new command > would look like. > Is it an APL function (which basically means that the command only > relieves the user > from quoting the argument of the command) or would it be implemented in > or C++ > like native functions? > As I envisioned it: the former. Just some syntactic sugaring around an APL function. > And do we know how often this feature in Dyalog was used in real life? Its used to provide access to many of their development tools. See http://docs.dyalog.com/13.2/User%20Commands.pdf .
