Good to know, and I agree. Thanks.
Blake On Sat, Apr 18, 2015 at 7:12 AM, Juergen Sauermann < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi Elias, > > correct. Unfortunately there seems to be a mismatch between the ISO > standard on one side, > and the IBM reference manual and the IBM APL2 interpreter on the other. > > For example, the formula for *8○* is* (¯1-B*2)*.5* in the* ISO standard* > on *page 92* but > *-(¯1-B*2)*.5* in the IBM reference manual on *page 80*. > > In the past I have resolved such differences in favour of the IBM > implementation because few people > really follow the standard and following the standard would decrease the > compatibility of GNU APL with > IBM APL2. > > /// Jürgen > > > On 04/15/2015 04:42 PM, Elias Mårtenson wrote: > > According to my documentation that I copied from the ISO spec, 8○ should > be equivalent to: (¯1-R⋆2)⋆0.5 and ¯8○ should be equal to -(¯1-R×2)⋆0.5. > > In GNU APL the opposite happens. I.e. ¯8○ returns what 8○ is supposed to > return and vice versa. > > Is my analysis correct? > > Regards, > Elias > > >
