Hi Jürgen, Thank you for verification. My bad, I did not check with IBM APL2.
Best Regards, David On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 2:39 PM, Juergen Sauermann < juergen.sauerm...@t-online.de> wrote: > Hi David, > > GNU APL shows the same behavior as IBM APL2 (except that the IBM result is > nested one more level)): > > * 1 2 3,.,4 5 6* > * 1 2 3 4 5 6 * > * ⍴1 2 3,.,4 5 6* > > * ≡1 2 3,.,4 5 6* > *2* > * 4 ⎕CR 1 2 3,.,4 5 6* > *┏━━━━━━━━━━━━━┓* > *┃┏→━━━━━━━━━━┓┃* > *┃┃1 2 3 4 5 6┃┃* > *┃┗━━━━━━━━━━━┛┃* > *┗∊━━━━━━━━━━━━┛* > > > Best Regards, > /// Jürgen > > > > > On 05/17/2018 06:52 PM, David Tran wrote: > > Hi, > > Below shows the bug: > > 1 2 3 ,., 4 5 6 > > result: 1 2 3 4 5 6 > expected: 1 4 2 5 3 6 > > > Thanks, > David > > >
