Re: [Bug-apl] Feature suggestion: multiple function arguments

[Kacper Gutowski]

On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 2:03 PM, Juergen Sauermann wrote:
> Consider this:
>
>       1 (+//) 1 2 3 4
> 1 2 3 4

FWIW, Dyalog returns the same, but it certainly does something weird
I don't understand here.  It treats it as an operator even when it
says it is a function:

      f←/
      ⎕NC'f'
3
      1(+f f)1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4

All in all while I think tacit definitions are certainly attractive,
I'm inclined to agree that it's probably not worth the effort even if
it could be done without ugly hacks.

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 2:14 PM, Jay Foad wrote:
> In APL2 this is not a problem, because / et al are always operators:
>
>       1 2 /¨ 3 4 ⍝ in APL2 this parses as (1 2 /)¨ 3 4
>  3 3 3  4 4 4

This is interesting.  I think this conflicts with ISO, but curiously
I can't find each operator in the form table there.  While I'm aware
that Iverson has written that it's possible to treat / uniformly as
an operator, ISO certainly keeps function / and operator / separate
requiring ether constant or function on their left, respectively.

-k