Newsgroups: comp.lang.apl
Path: watmath!watserv2.uwaterloo.ca!watserv1!Robert_Brown@MTS.cc.Wayne.edu
From: Robert_Brown@MTS.cc.Wayne.edu
Subject: A modest proposal
Message-ID: <635727@MTS.cc.Wayne.edu>
Originator: daemon@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca
Sender: news@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1993 06:23:42 GMT

 
In article <735171646.AA03641@blkcat.UUCP>,
David.Michelson@f70.n109.z1.fidonet.org (David Michelson) writes:
 > I have a modest proposal for ASCII transmission of APL code:
   :
   :
 
There have been MANY methods implemented for representing APL code on
non-APL device.  Lee Dickey has a collection of 35+ of them.  Most, if
not all, are parsable, since they were used in the implementation of
one or more interpreters.
 
I don't like Davids appraoch, but his heart is in the right place!
 
What we need is not ANOTHER way to represent these, but AGREEMENT on
which SINGLE ONE to use.  Perhaps someone should get this list from Lee,
examine it, decide upon the best scheme, and post the results.  I'm sure
that extensions would be required, but that would not be a major problem.
The representation scheme could be standardized, and a pointer to it can
be included in the FAQ.  People could write code to translate to/from
this scheme, and we could then move code across the Net much more easily.
 
This relates to something brought out in another thread:
in article <930411074536_70530.1226_CHV24-2@CompuServe.COM>
Mike Kent <70530.1226@CompuServe.COM>
> While we have been asking for enhanced squish and inverse-quash, the rest
> of the world has been groping towards convenient, effective encapsulation
> and re-use techniques.
 
Now, take out "convenient, effective encapsulation and re-use techniques",
and put in "ways of representing non-ASCII glyphs".  LaTeX and POSTSCRIPT
do this for printers; Standardized mnemonics would do this for us. It's not
too important WHICH of the thirty schemes we adopt, BUT LET'S ADOPT ONE
ALREADY!  Stop looking for something PERFECT, and go with a standard that
is PRACTICAL.
 
I'd be amenable to TWO, if there was a compelling reason.
 
+---------------------------------------+----------------------------------+
|  Robert G. Brown                      |  "We don't believe in wasting    |
|  Executive Editor, APL Quote-Quad     |   valuable Bandwidth on a lot    |
|  REPLY TO: bob@acm.org                |   of fancy message footers"      |
+---------------------------------------+----------------------------------+
