Newsgroups: comp.lang.apl
Path: watmath!watserv1!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!torsqnt!tmsoft!itcyyz!yrloc!rbe
From: rbe@yrloc.ipsa.reuter.COM (Robert Bernecky)
Subject: Re: APL slash bang (Repost)
Message-ID: <1992Mar24.161512.25828@yrloc.ipsa.reuter.COM>
Reply-To: rbe@yrloc.ipsa.reuter.COM (Robert Bernecky)
Organization: Snake Island Research Inc, Toronto
References: <1992Mar19.190314.27860@csi.jpl.nasa.gov> <1992Mar19.220251.29999@cshl.org> <1992Mar20.030250.15467@watson.ibm.com> <1992Mar23.140955.20651@cshl.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 92 16:15:12 GMT

In article <1992Mar23.140955.20651@cshl.org> wchang@cshl.org (Bill Chang) writes:
>
>I agree semantics is the real problem.  And economics.  It is far from 
>clear that APL vendors would benefit in the short run from a reconciliation.  
>
>The only way to do this is for a committee of users to decide on the names.

{Long pause while I guffaw, giggle, and roll on the floor laughing}.

Spoken with true naivety. Two points, which should be obvious:
  a. Committees are incapable of doing anything which comes even close
     in sensible design to that of a single person. 
  b. Go sit on a standards committee, if you want to see this silliness
     in action. You will not (see below) see any form of sensible
     behavior, let alone impartiality. 

     Here was a typical event at the ISO APL Standards Committee Meeting:
      -I talk about some point, and suggest that we discuss it until
       we have some statement about which we can reach consensus. 
       I think the point in question had to do with the original topic
       here: Differing semantics among vendors, for the same glyph.
      - By mutual agreement, we claim to have reached consensus.
      - I introduce the motion we have hammered out.
      - The French vote against it. 


>Since there are so few good names, the assignments have to be impartial.
>(at least both look good).  Now the real situation is much more complicated.
>(A fundamental disagreement on types is whether or not '' equals iota 0.  
>The two ='s must be given different names.)  I don't know if _all_ the 

Sorry, big fella. Since the result of ''= iota 0 is an empty array,
there are no result elements involved, so the point is moot. Perhaps
you meant "match"? 

>differences can be "resolved" by giving them different names/abbreviations/
>initials; where can I find a comprehensive list of these differences?

Nowhere.

Not in one place, anyway.

>
>I said earlier that each company must invent new, unique symbols and rename
>all their non-ISO features in these symbols.  Then there will be less 
>confusion on paper at least.  In order to use or to talk about these symbols
>on the net for example, an ASCII solution must be devised.  Hence APL/!.

Nope. Won't work. 
For example, the definition of reduction differs between SHARP APL and APL2
(and I think, between APL*PLUS and APl2, but ain't sure). Meetings between
vendors, as you have seen by Gerth's message, have little effect. 
Why? Because BOTH vendors have tens of thousands of users with gigabytes
of code which is dependent on the current behavior of that system.
What's in it for them? (This isn't always the case -- a number of us
have made significant improvements in bringing different dialects to
a common lingo, but it's nowhere near as easy as you present.) 

>I do believe glyphs are important, and _personal_ glyphs will hopefully 
>be incorporated into the next generation of (notebook/pen-based) computers.  
>(Chinese has thousands of glyphs; the language is very rich :-)  Now APL 
>has a head start in this regard!  But for the next five years at least, 

Yup, it's got thousands of glyphs. And it's a bitch to type.



Robert Bernecky      rbe@yrloc.ipsa.reuter.com  bernecky@itrchq.itrc.on.ca 
Snake Island Research Inc  (416) 368-6944   FAX: (416) 360-4694 
18 Fifth Street, Ward's Island
Toronto, Ontario M5J 2B9 
Canada
