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 to a different variable would be usable, if we had lexically bound variables. Regards, Elias On 20 July 2014 23:05, Juergen Sauermann <[email protected]> wrote: > 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? And how about not-present χ-es? > > This all together looks rather odd to me. I see more problems than > benefits in these cases and > would recommend good old standard APL functions instead where all the > desired features that are > missing in GNU-APL lambdas are present. > > /// Jürgen > > > > On 07/10/2014 02:03 AM, Kacper Gutowski wrote: > >> 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 is neither lexically scoped nor localized. >> >> Using ⍵⍵ might be confusing for Dyalog users where ⍺⍺ and ⍵⍵ are used >> as functional arguments of dfn operators. But since GNU APL uses ⍶ >> and ⍹ for those and it doesn't localize variables in dfns, using >> repeated ⍺/⍵ for nested arguments doesn't sound that bad. >> >> >> -k >> >> >
