Yes, the first seems more appropriate and readable. However, I would argue that the variables in that list should be the ones to be made global; for me it is easier to forget that an argument is global rather than forget that it is local.
In addition, I believe that this would be more compatible with other APLs; NARS and Dyalog, which are the two I have on hand, both treat all lambda variables as local. However this could break compatibility with older GNU APL lambdas. In any case, just being able to choose wether a variable is local or global would be great. Cheers, Louis > On 14 Aug 2016, at 15:50, Juergen Sauermann <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi, > > Thinking about lambdas once more I had an idea of a syntax for declaring > local variables in > the lambda. In order to bring lambdas and proper functions closer together > rather than separating > them more than necessary, we could use the same syntax as in proper defined > functions: a list > of variable names separated by semicolons. A lambda with body ⍺+⍵ and local > variables C, D, > and E would then be declared as: > > {⍺+⍵;C;D;E} > > One could also think of > > {C;D;E;⍺+⍵} > > But the first looks more appealing to me. Any opinions? > > /// Jürgen
