Newsgroups: comp.lang.apl
Path: watmath!watserv1!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!wupost!darwin.sura.net!haven.umd.edu!socrates!socrates!rockwell
From: rockwell@socrates.umd.edu (Raul Deluth Miller-Rockwell)
Subject: Re: APL Transliteration (was Re: APL slash bang (Repost))
In-Reply-To: wchang@cshl.org's message of Mon, 23 Mar 92 15:15:11 GMT
Message-ID: <ROCKWELL.92Mar23223711@socrates.umd.edu>
Sender: rockwell@socrates.umd.edu (Raul Deluth Miller-Rockwell)
Organization: Traveller
References: <1992Mar19.190314.27860@csi.jpl.nasa.gov> <1992Mar19.220251.29999@cshl.org>
	<ROCKWELL.92Mar20072450@socrates.umd.edu>
	<1992Mar23.151511.27848@cshl.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 03:37:11 GMT
Lines: 35

Bill Chang:
   It is easy to criticize APL in this regard, but consider: lexical
   and static scoping are out because in the APL workspace there is no
   concept of "nearest definition" of free variables (unlike
   script-based J, which has its own ideosyncracies with "loading
   order").  The APL workspace is elegant and obviously good enough
   for people to get real work done.

Uh... J has workspaces as well as scripts.

Scripts have more visibility, because they are more suitable for
posting to the net.  But I'd give a lot to have J's level of workspace
support available in the APL interpreter we have at work.

   Short of having true object orientation, dynamic scoping is
   arguably superior to static scoping in this regard.

'true object orientation'?  I'm not quite sure what you mean by that
phrase, but I'd argue that J's implementation of nested arrays is
adequate to meet the needs that dynamic scoping fills in current APLs.

   But ambiguity from ambivalent functions we can do without!

That, I think, is going to have to wait till we get a larger symbol
set.  Also, I find that using the monadic case of a function to set a
'default value' for the dyadic case to be a very handy feature.

   How about packaging a summary of the various threads and sending it
   to APL Quote-Quad?

That would seem to be in the nature of usenet [which is, after all, a
copy and foward system].  Specifically, I have no objections.

-- 
Raul Deluth Miller-Rockwell                   <rockwell@socrates.umd.edu>
