Although I personally like tacit style, I agree that they shouldn't make their way into the main branch. It could be interesting to see them added to a fork (heh) of GNU APL however.
Alexey: As to the lack of APL symbols in J, I sometimes miss the nice symbols present in APL. J thus loses some "handwriteability". This shouldn't however keep you from trying it out; it's quite similar to APL and the concepts of verb rank and function composition make you think differently about the way you solve problems. It's definitely worth a try. Louis > On 13 Mar 2016, at 19:35, Kacper Gutowski <mwgam...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 6:20 PM, Juergen Sauermann > <juergen.sauerm...@t-online.de> wrote: >> it actually does create conflicts. >> >> In IBM APL2 and in GNU APL, the expression >> >> ⍺ (f g h) ⍵ >> >> gives a 3 item vector with the items being ⍺, (f g h), and ⍵. >> In Dyalog APL it gives (quote): >> >> (⍺ f ⍵) g (⍺ h ⍵) ⍝ dyadic (fgh) fork > > I'm not certain whether it does create conflicts or not in general, > but I think this particular example is flawed: ⍺ (f g h) ⍵ could be > anything depending on what name classes those symbols have > (particularly if g were an operator). When f, g, and h are all > functions, then it's not a vector, but a syntax error. No conflict > here. > > -k
