When Mr.Wirth comes up with a useful interpretative rule for
x f y g z NB. f,g are verbs; x,y,z are nouns
other than right-associative, I'll listen to him. Was there even an
established convention in 1962? Otherwise, the paper can be an interesting
read.
>:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|\/| Randy A MacDonald | APL: If you can say it, it's done.. (ram)
|/\| [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
|\ | | The only real problem with APL is that
BSc(Math) UNBF'83 | it is "still ahead of its time."
Sapere Aude | - Morten Kromberg
Natural Born APL'er | Demo website: http://156.34.64.156/
-----------------------------------------------------(INTP)----{ gnat }-
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Randall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "General forum" <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 8:51 AM
Subject: Re: [Jgeneral] garbage (and the collection thereof)
> Tracy Harms wrote:
> > I ask because it came to mind as I read "Good Ideas,
> > Through the Looking Glass" by Niklaus Wirth.
> ......
> > http://www.cs.inf.ethz.ch/~wirth/Articles/GoodIdeas_origFig.pdf
>
> Surprisingly for this sort of article, APL got off with just a slap on the
> wrist (p. 13):
>
> [quote]
> A similar break with established convention was the postulation of
> operators being right-associative in the language APL in 1962. x+y+z now
> suddenly stood for x+(y+z), and x-y-z for x-y+z. What a treacherous
> pitfall!
> [/quote]
>
> John
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
