Newsgroups: comp.lang.apl
Path: watmath!watserv1!utgpu!utzoo!censor!geac!itcyyz!yrloc!hui
From: hui@yrloc.ipsa.reuter.COM (Roger Hui)
Subject: Re: Is hook really necessary?
Message-ID: <1991Jul7.154102.16243@yrloc.ipsa.reuter.COM>
Organization: Iverson Software Inc.
References: <ROCKWELL.91Jul3181219@socrates.umd.edu> <1991Jul4.045226.5150@watmath.waterloo.edu> <ROCKWELL.91Jul4024805@socrates.umd.edu> <1991Jul5.034830.29042@yrloc.ipsa.reuter.COM> <ROCKWELL.91Jul6172330@socrates.umd.edu>
Date: Sun, 7 Jul 91 15:41:02 GMT

In article <ROCKWELL.91Jul6172330@socrates.umd.edu> rockwell@socrates.umd.edu (Raul Rockwell) writes:
>Me:
>   >For the sake of completeness, here is how foo would have to be written
>   >to get the definition it would have had in earlier versions of J:
>   >   foo =. + '''x.''~f.  ''y.''~f.' : 2 +
>Roger Hui:
>   Actually, the earlier behaviour can be obtained by
>      foo =. + '(x. y.) f.' : 2 +
>
>Yeah.  But that's not consistent with the 3.2 lazy function
>resolution, is it?

Raul, in   '(x. y.)f.' : 2   I was saying it in the simplest
way I know how, rather than adhering to some abstract principle.
At most, I would've said   'x.f. y.f.' : 2   .  The circumlocutory
'''x.''~f. ''y.''~f.' : 2   was genuinely surprising to me.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Hui
Iverson Software Inc., 33 Major Street, Toronto, Ontario  M5S 2K9
(416) 925 6096
