I would like to mention that after my previous mail, I've pretty much run out of arguments and I believe I've made my point completely clear.
I will stand back after this. I don't want it to be a neverending debate. Regards, Elias On 7 Aug 2014 22:12, "Juergen Sauermann" <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > my point is that there should be no difference between lambdas and defined > functions. > > The reason that the left argument is ignored is that dyadic functions can > be called monadically > (the presence of the left argument *can* be checked with *⎕NC* but it > does not have to be checked.) > But even in this case lambdas and defined functions behave in the the same > way. > > What you are arguing for is that lambdas and defined functions shall > behave differently > in the niladic case. This maybe convenient at times but would increase the > complexity > of the syntax and could come as a surprise for many others > > /// Jürgen > > > On 08/07/2014 03:58 PM, Jay Foad wrote: > > Right. Even in GNU APL monadic lambdas consume and ignore any left > argument you give them, so you could argue that it's consistent for > niladic lambdas to consume and ignore both arguments. > > Jay. > > On 7 August 2014 14:53, Elias Mårtenson <[email protected]> > <[email protected]> wrote: > > And, one could argue that knowing that lambdas are always variadic is quite > consistent in itself. > > >
