I think the distinction was made between "enclose" or "nest", as in APL2, which stopped when you made an item a scalar, and "box", as in Sharp APL, which could be done even to a scalar.
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 12:57 PM, Raul Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 8:49 AM, Dan Bron <[email protected]> wrote: > > . I also believe (but don't know) that these APLs only boxed where they > > "needed" to, automatically, so that for example it wasn't possible to box > a > > scalar (the reasoning being that the fundamental cell of an array is a > > scalar, and if you want to make an item part of an array all you have to > do > > is make it a scalar, which is what boxing is for, so boxing scalars > seemed > > redundant). > > The way this was [repeatedly] explained to me was that in > APL2, scalars were already infinitely nested so further > nesting meant nothing. > > (This always felt someone disingenuous, to me, for example > in the context of determining the depth of nesting of an array. > Then again, infinity is a disingenuous concept.) > > -- > Raul > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > -- Devon McCormick, CFA ^me^ at acm. org is my preferred e-mail ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
