Touché ... but it is why I smile when I see the oft repeated assertion
that Unicode solves the problem of conveying APL (and other) symbols...
Other papers in http://www.jsoftware.com/papers/ (e.g. Rational APL,
Dictionary of APL, etc.) display correctly in all my browsers, but I'm
guessing you don't use ⌊ and ⌈ there...
Off the topic, but chat anyway - one of the pages that was up and
looking reasonable in the same Chrome instance was
http://tryapl.com/#
APL characters there seem to look reasonably OK (not perfect, but
recognizable). It seems like a nice little sandbox and I was poking at
it realizing that I felt like a Stranger in a Strange land when doing
so... That was an interesting feeling. I thought that maybe it was just
the APL2 direction that had me off balance, but I looked at IBM APL2
reference manual and saw nothing to explain/define the results of -
⍳2 3 4
┌→────┬─────┬─────┬─────┐
⍒1 1 1│1 1 2│1 1 3│1 1 4│
├~───→┼~───→┼~───→┼~───→┤
│1 2 1│1 2 2│1 2 3│1 2 4│
├~───→┼~───→┼~───→┼~───→┤
│1 3 1│1 3 2│1 3 3│1 3 4│
├~───→┼~───→┼~───→┼~───→┤
│2 1 1│2 1 2│2 1 3│2 1 4│
├~───→┼~───→┼~───→┼~───→┤
│2 2 1│2 2 2│2 2 3│2 2 4│
├~───→┼~───→┼~───→┼~───→┤
│2 3 1│2 3 2│2 3 3│2 3 4│
└~───→┴~───→┴~───→┴~───→┘
I couldn't guess or figure out anything I might use it for - there are
undoubtedly many other similar examples for someone using J for 25 years
and not much APL in that same period. Anyone have a nice explanation for
the difference from i.2 3 4 ?
On 2013/07/02 14:28 , Roger Hui wrote:
Symbols: Hey, that's not my department. :-) In the HTML source they were
entered as ⌈ ⌉ ⌊ and ⌋, and the way that are
rendered probably depends on what fonts are installed on your system. I've
looked at them in my Chrome browser in Windows and on my Galaxy Tab and
they look fine.
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Joey K Tuttle <[email protected]> wrote:
I don't have access to the 1968 edition, but would like to add that while
the link to APLQA.htm#Knuth renders OK in Firefox, the symbols are messed
up in Safari and Chrome on my iMac, but OK in both those browsers on my
iPad... Dunno why, just saying.
On 2013/07/02 13:39 , Eric Iverson wrote:
The quote (below as taken from your link) appears in the 1968 edition.
The notation [x] is often used elsewhere for one or the other of these
functions, usually the former; the notation above, which are due to
K.E. Iverson, are more useful, because both functions occur about
equally often in practice. The function ⌊x⌋ is sometimes called the
entier function, from the French word for “integer”.
There is a small difference. The 1968 edition has: "...the notations
above...". (note the s).
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 4:26 PM, Roger Hui <[email protected]>
wrote:
http://www.jsoftware.com/**papers/APLQA.htm#Knuth<http://www.jsoftware.com/papers/APLQA.htm#Knuth>
Does anyone have the original edition of Knuth's *The Art of Computer
Programming*, Volume 1, published in 1968? If so, can you please tell me
whether the above quotation occurs in that edition?
------------------------------**------------------------------**
----------
For information about J forums see
http://www.jsoftware.com/**forums.htm<http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
