Newsgroups: comp.lang.apl
Path: watmath!watserv2.uwaterloo.ca!watserv1!70530.1226@compuserve.com
From: Mike Kent <70530.1226@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Boxed/nested comparison
Message-ID: <920930041647_70530.1226_CHC95-1@CompuServe.COM>
Sender: root@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 04:16:48 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.192450.3393@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
pviton@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (P A Viton) asks:

>  Does anyone know of a discussion in which Sharp's implementation of
>  nested arrays ... is compared to the implementations of IBM ...
>  or STSC?  

I have not found any direct comparisons, but:

	"Why APL2: a Discussion of Design Principles", James A. Brown,
	APL87 Proceedings     discusses some of the design decisions
	made in implementing APL2 and why certain choices were made.
        In particular, it discusses why the enclose of a simple scalar
        gives the simple scalar.

        Phil Benkard's APL 84 article"Ranks vs Depth for Array
        Partitioning" discusses one of the basic differences in 
        approach.  In the same proceedings, Jim Brown's article
        "Function Assignment and Arrays of Functions" and the Bunda
         and Gerth article "APL Two by Two -- Syntas Analysis by
         Pairwise Reduction" touch on issues of strands and of
         approaches to syntax analysis.

	There was also a nice piece "An Introduction to Function 
	Rank" frome the other camp via Bob Bernecky in one of the
	recent conference proceedings (perhaps the author can give 
	a more exact citation?).

	And of course there are the "Dictionary of APL" (Iverson)
        for Sharp and the "APL2 Programming:  Language Reference"
	which are fairly definitive on the two sides.
	

