+1
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 9:19 PM, Peter Teeson <[email protected]> wrote: > It so happens that 2 of my former colleagues from I.P.Sharp came visiting > today and we were chatting about this. > Ken was not in favour of making APL complicated. When I worked at IPSA my > office was next to Ken’s > and when someone suggested some form of addition to the language he would > usually ask > why we could not do it with an APL function. (These days performance can > hardly be a compelling argument > with multiple many-core CPU chips.) > > Right now we already have a proliferation of Quad functions not to mention > lambdas and native functions. > We also have divergent APLs such as Dyalog (good as it is) and so on. > > Complex numbers, rationals and file systems are good additions. > But IMHO we should have one simple mechanism - i.e. the libapl APL API > and all the rest go through that as native functions. > > Jurgen’s guiding light is to make GNUAPL an implementation that met the > ISO and APL2 definitions. > We have already wondered away from that. Pity. When will it stop? > > Just my 02¢ > > respect > > Peter > >
