Re: [Bug-apl] SQL interface needs a workspace

[Daniel H. Leidisch]

Hello!

Elias Mårtenson <address@hidden>
writes:

> Finally, about extensions, I have actually considered implementing a
> new language (on top of Common Lisp most likely) that implements the
> essence of the APL syntax and functions but with Lisp integration. And
> rest assured that this thing will not be called "APL". :-)

Go for it! I thought about this, too. Give it proper lexically scoped
lambdas, namespaces, seamless access to some kind of dictionary data
type (maybe something like in K), make it extendable from within itself
like Lisp (or at least allow definition of primitives in APL, like in
NGN APL, and as planned for NARS2000), and I'll definitely take a closer
look at it, or help you out, if I can. I see no reason why you shouldn't
call it APL, if it adheres to the core principles. But, of course,
that's up to you. There were APLs before the standard, and there will be
APLs after it – unless it just dies a slow death. The extensions and
nonconformances of today might be tomorrow's standards – if there will
ever be another one.

As far as GNU APL is concerned, I'm with Blake: Jürgen provided us with
a free APL 2 implementation. That's a great achievement, and I very much
appreciate it. Having a conforming APL 2 to learn and experiment with,
including its source, is great. It's just not necessarily in all points
the language I'd like to use.


Regards,

Daniel