I think it was his point, too, but lumping a moribund notation in with otherwise largely civilized (except for the APL2 pollution) operators wasn't quite fair, in my book. That was the intended thrust of my Grump-O-Gram.
"Maybe when they have something portable and fully implemented..." I am sure that the SAC team would certainly benefit and welcome having others chip in some of their time and effort to make both of the above happen. 0's and 1's: I do find it mysterious that so few languages are able to deal with these arrays of most fundamental particles that comprise computers. Bob On Fri, 2007-12-21 at 12:27 -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > On Dec 21, 2007 9:53 AM, Robert Bernecky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think your comments on the "axis-bracket notation" is a bit > > of a cheap shot. That notation is NOT an operator, ... > > I think that was his point. > > > However, we might also learn from > > the experience of Sven-Bodo Scholz and the SAC > > designers, who took the array concepts of APL and > > implemented them in a functional subset of C. > > Maybe, when they have something portable, and fully > implemented, we can judge the value of this statement. > > For now, I note that in some contexts the language designers > seem to want us to represent the constants 1 and 0 with > six/seven character keywords (with additional overhead > when we want to perform arithemetic operations using > those values). I am certain that this treatment of bool > values makes some kinds of theories simpler, but I am > dubious of the overall character of this project. [I am > sure people investing significant effort can overcome this > sort of hurdle, but I prefer to adopt a "wait and see" approach > over a "jump right in" approach.] > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
