Rob Pike
Rob Pike
Perhaps, but #146 in my head at least was about non-square matrices.
It's pretty cool but I feel it's a bit too rich a concoction for the demo, which aims to show the fundamentals.
Comment 1: Deferring to 1.3. _Labels changed: added **go1.3maybe**, removed **go1.2maybe**._
Comment 2: _Labels changed: removed **go1.3maybe**._
Not ready for prime time, and I'm not sure I like it, but I have this working now in unchecked-in code: )op sign op sign i = if: i >=...
This works now. op firstmod (a b l r) = l > r: 0 x i ai bi = 0 0 1 0 :while (a != 0) and (b !=...
The countercounterargument is that none of these constructs is restricted to user-defined operators any more, meaning it forms a kind of switch expression. That seems powerful So making colon a...
I put in a :ret, very easy. We can both have what we want.
Yes, the grammar predates some of the fancy indexing analysis. Parser.number binds the indexing too tightly. That's where the issue happens, and it's easy to just delete the call to...
This is the current behavior 1 2 3[3] 3 x=4 5 6 1 2 x[3] 1 2 6 The inconsistency is galling and likely the reason APL goes the other...