What scares me about APL syntax like that is that at one time, I could 
actually write it. Read it - no, but write it for sure. And it usually 
worked. And when it didn't - I just wrote it again!

DAS


At 11:37 PM 11/19/2001 +0100, you wrote:
>Too bad they couldn't get away from APL like unreadable operators. That's
>the most disturbing part - there's nothing wrong with a few carefully chosen
>keywords (like #join, #reduce etc) and learning all these operators is just
>a pain. Reminds me of my favourite entry in the J online help:
>
>"For vectors and matrices, the phrase x +/ . * y is equivalent to the dot,
>inner, or matrix product of math; other rank-0 verbs such as <. and *. are
>treated analogously. In general, u . v is defined by u@(v"(1+lv,_)),
>restated in English below."
>
>Ah, yes. u@(v"(1+lv,_)). Of course ;-)
>
>Cheers,
>   - Andreas
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: squeak-dev-admin at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> > [mailto:squeak-dev-admin at lists.squeakfoundation.org]On Behalf
> > Of Greg A.
> > Woods
> > Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 9:19 PM
> > To: squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> > Subject: Re: f-script
> >
> >
> > [ On Monday, November 19, 2001 at 13:25:52 (+0100), Bruce
> > ONeel wrote: ]
> > > Subject: f-script
> > >
> > > at http://www.fscript.org is a MacOS X scripting layer
> > > which looks a lot like Smaltalk.
> >
> > It _is_ Smalltalk!  (with a tiny syntax enhancement and some
> > new methods
> > for the Array class!  :-)
> >
> > Other than the innovative syntax used, I'm wondering what all
> > they hype
> > is about -- everything else discussed in the paper "High Level Object
> > Oriented Programming with Array Technology" by Philippe Mougin
> > (available for download from www.fscript.org, and published in the ACM
> > APL-2000 Berlin confer procedings) seems obvious, even to someone like
> > me who's not much of an expert on "array programming" or any of the
> > traditional languages such as APL.  Indeed many of the new Array class
> > messages discussed seemed like obvious additions (though of
> > course some
> > of them only become truly useful with the new message send
> > notation for
> > Array objects).  Some of the potential underlying implementation
> > optimisations discussed seemd pretty nifty too though.
> >
> > Does anyone have any thoughts on adding this AP stuff to Squeak?
> >
> > --
> >                                                       Greg A. Woods
> >
> > +1 416 218-0098      VE3TCP      <gwoods at acm.org>
> > <woods at robohack.ca>
> > Planix, Inc. <woods at planix.com>;   Secrets of the Weird
> > <woods at weird.com>
> >
> >