Partition behaviour in GNU APL and Dyalog APL












3















In Dyalog APL there is ⎕ML which changes how partition operates.
When ⎕ML←0



(5 ⍴ 1 0) ⊂ 5 5 ⍴ ⍳25



┌→─────────────────────┐
│ ┌→────┐ ┌→────┐ ┌→─┐ │
│ ↓ 1 2│ ↓ 3 4│ ↓ 5│ │
│ │ 6 7│ │ 8 9│ │10│ │
│ │11 12│ │13 14│ │15│ │
│ │16 17│ │18 19│ │20│ │
│ │21 22│ │23 24│ │25│ │
│ └~────┘ └~────┘ └~─┘ │
└∊─────────────────────┘


For the same statement (5 ⍴ 1 0) ⊂ 5 5 ⍴ ⍳25 in GNU APL



┏→━━━━━━━━━━━━━┓
↓┏→┓ ┏→┓ ┏→┓ ┃
┃┃1┃ ┃3┃ ┃5┃ ┃
┃┗━┛ ┗━┛ ┗━┛ ┃
┃┏→┓ ┏→┓ ┏→━┓┃
┃┃6┃ ┃8┃ ┃10┃┃
┃┗━┛ ┗━┛ ┗━━┛┃
┃┏→━┓ ┏→━┓ ┏→━┓┃
┃┃11┃ ┃13┃ ┃15┃┃
┃┗━━┛ ┗━━┛ ┗━━┛┃
┃┏→━┓ ┏→━┓ ┏→━┓┃
┃┃16┃ ┃18┃ ┃20┃┃
┃┗━━┛ ┗━━┛ ┗━━┛┃
┃┏→━┓ ┏→━┓ ┏→━┓┃
┃┃21┃ ┃23┃ ┃25┃┃
┃┗━━┛ ┗━━┛ ┗━━┛┃
┗∊━━━━━━━━━━━━━┛


Dyalog APL also does this when ⎕ML←3



Is there a way to alter how GNU APL behaves to obtain the same behaviour?










share|improve this question





























    3















    In Dyalog APL there is ⎕ML which changes how partition operates.
    When ⎕ML←0



    (5 ⍴ 1 0) ⊂ 5 5 ⍴ ⍳25



    ┌→─────────────────────┐
    │ ┌→────┐ ┌→────┐ ┌→─┐ │
    │ ↓ 1 2│ ↓ 3 4│ ↓ 5│ │
    │ │ 6 7│ │ 8 9│ │10│ │
    │ │11 12│ │13 14│ │15│ │
    │ │16 17│ │18 19│ │20│ │
    │ │21 22│ │23 24│ │25│ │
    │ └~────┘ └~────┘ └~─┘ │
    └∊─────────────────────┘


    For the same statement (5 ⍴ 1 0) ⊂ 5 5 ⍴ ⍳25 in GNU APL



    ┏→━━━━━━━━━━━━━┓
    ↓┏→┓ ┏→┓ ┏→┓ ┃
    ┃┃1┃ ┃3┃ ┃5┃ ┃
    ┃┗━┛ ┗━┛ ┗━┛ ┃
    ┃┏→┓ ┏→┓ ┏→━┓┃
    ┃┃6┃ ┃8┃ ┃10┃┃
    ┃┗━┛ ┗━┛ ┗━━┛┃
    ┃┏→━┓ ┏→━┓ ┏→━┓┃
    ┃┃11┃ ┃13┃ ┃15┃┃
    ┃┗━━┛ ┗━━┛ ┗━━┛┃
    ┃┏→━┓ ┏→━┓ ┏→━┓┃
    ┃┃16┃ ┃18┃ ┃20┃┃
    ┃┗━━┛ ┗━━┛ ┗━━┛┃
    ┃┏→━┓ ┏→━┓ ┏→━┓┃
    ┃┃21┃ ┃23┃ ┃25┃┃
    ┃┗━━┛ ┗━━┛ ┗━━┛┃
    ┗∊━━━━━━━━━━━━━┛


    Dyalog APL also does this when ⎕ML←3



    Is there a way to alter how GNU APL behaves to obtain the same behaviour?










    share|improve this question



























      3












      3








      3








      In Dyalog APL there is ⎕ML which changes how partition operates.
      When ⎕ML←0



      (5 ⍴ 1 0) ⊂ 5 5 ⍴ ⍳25



      ┌→─────────────────────┐
      │ ┌→────┐ ┌→────┐ ┌→─┐ │
      │ ↓ 1 2│ ↓ 3 4│ ↓ 5│ │
      │ │ 6 7│ │ 8 9│ │10│ │
      │ │11 12│ │13 14│ │15│ │
      │ │16 17│ │18 19│ │20│ │
      │ │21 22│ │23 24│ │25│ │
      │ └~────┘ └~────┘ └~─┘ │
      └∊─────────────────────┘


      For the same statement (5 ⍴ 1 0) ⊂ 5 5 ⍴ ⍳25 in GNU APL



      ┏→━━━━━━━━━━━━━┓
      ↓┏→┓ ┏→┓ ┏→┓ ┃
      ┃┃1┃ ┃3┃ ┃5┃ ┃
      ┃┗━┛ ┗━┛ ┗━┛ ┃
      ┃┏→┓ ┏→┓ ┏→━┓┃
      ┃┃6┃ ┃8┃ ┃10┃┃
      ┃┗━┛ ┗━┛ ┗━━┛┃
      ┃┏→━┓ ┏→━┓ ┏→━┓┃
      ┃┃11┃ ┃13┃ ┃15┃┃
      ┃┗━━┛ ┗━━┛ ┗━━┛┃
      ┃┏→━┓ ┏→━┓ ┏→━┓┃
      ┃┃16┃ ┃18┃ ┃20┃┃
      ┃┗━━┛ ┗━━┛ ┗━━┛┃
      ┃┏→━┓ ┏→━┓ ┏→━┓┃
      ┃┃21┃ ┃23┃ ┃25┃┃
      ┃┗━━┛ ┗━━┛ ┗━━┛┃
      ┗∊━━━━━━━━━━━━━┛


      Dyalog APL also does this when ⎕ML←3



      Is there a way to alter how GNU APL behaves to obtain the same behaviour?










      share|improve this question
















      In Dyalog APL there is ⎕ML which changes how partition operates.
      When ⎕ML←0



      (5 ⍴ 1 0) ⊂ 5 5 ⍴ ⍳25



      ┌→─────────────────────┐
      │ ┌→────┐ ┌→────┐ ┌→─┐ │
      │ ↓ 1 2│ ↓ 3 4│ ↓ 5│ │
      │ │ 6 7│ │ 8 9│ │10│ │
      │ │11 12│ │13 14│ │15│ │
      │ │16 17│ │18 19│ │20│ │
      │ │21 22│ │23 24│ │25│ │
      │ └~────┘ └~────┘ └~─┘ │
      └∊─────────────────────┘


      For the same statement (5 ⍴ 1 0) ⊂ 5 5 ⍴ ⍳25 in GNU APL



      ┏→━━━━━━━━━━━━━┓
      ↓┏→┓ ┏→┓ ┏→┓ ┃
      ┃┃1┃ ┃3┃ ┃5┃ ┃
      ┃┗━┛ ┗━┛ ┗━┛ ┃
      ┃┏→┓ ┏→┓ ┏→━┓┃
      ┃┃6┃ ┃8┃ ┃10┃┃
      ┃┗━┛ ┗━┛ ┗━━┛┃
      ┃┏→━┓ ┏→━┓ ┏→━┓┃
      ┃┃11┃ ┃13┃ ┃15┃┃
      ┃┗━━┛ ┗━━┛ ┗━━┛┃
      ┃┏→━┓ ┏→━┓ ┏→━┓┃
      ┃┃16┃ ┃18┃ ┃20┃┃
      ┃┗━━┛ ┗━━┛ ┗━━┛┃
      ┃┏→━┓ ┏→━┓ ┏→━┓┃
      ┃┃21┃ ┃23┃ ┃25┃┃
      ┃┗━━┛ ┗━━┛ ┗━━┛┃
      ┗∊━━━━━━━━━━━━━┛


      Dyalog APL also does this when ⎕ML←3



      Is there a way to alter how GNU APL behaves to obtain the same behaviour?







      arrays split apl dyalog gnu-apl






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited Nov 25 '18 at 14:52









      Adám

      1,406718




      1,406718










      asked Jan 14 '15 at 5:20









      alexweineralexweiner

      364




      364
























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          5














          The short answer is no, because GNU APL follows IBM APL2 language conventions.



          The core APL language was developed and perfected by the mid 1970s. However, Nested Arrays started coming a bit later, perhaps the first preliminary sneak peek implementations came out starting around 1980.



          The major players at the time were IBM, I. P. Sharp Associates, STSC, and Dyalog, a relative newcomer. All nested array implementations differed in one detail or another, arguably the biggest such difference was the implementation of boxed arrays by Sharp which were the basis of the boxed array implementation found today in J.



          Arguably, at the time, Mainframe IBM APL2 probably had the largest market share.



          STSC would later change its name to Manugistics and the implementation would evolve into APL2000's APL+ product suite.



          Both STSC and Dyalog provided some compatibility mode around the various nested array subspecies, STSC's was the )EVLEVEL system command, evolution level, and Dyalog's was ML, migration level.



          In a nutshell, Dyalog's ML can be set to 0, 1, 2, or 3. From Dyalog's documentation,



          ML 0 is the default native Dyalog nested array implementation



          ML 1 changes the definition of monadic epsilon to be the "enlist" function, a kind of super-ravel



          ML 2 swaps the definitions of the symbols used for the "first" and "mix" functions, plus presents an alternate definition of the "depth" function



          ML 3 provides IBM APL2 compatibility.



          Personally, I use ML 3 almost exclusively, as I programmed heavily in APL2 when mainframes were still around.



          Again, GNU APL follows IBM APL2 language compatibility. One way to achieve alternate enclose behaviours is to write cover functions to emulate the specialities of other implementations.






          share|improve this answer


























          • Thanks! Maybe I should just build ⎕ML into gnuapl!

            – alexweiner
            Jan 15 '15 at 0:41











          • One of the countless religious discussion points is whether it is a Good Thing to be able to change language features on the fly. With such awesome power comes awesome responsibility and all that.

            – Lobachevsky
            Jan 15 '15 at 8:01






          • 1





            I would like to add that a few years ago a number of experts made a great effort to analyze the behaviour of existing APL interpreters and distilled the state of the art into the ISO/IEC 13751:2001 "Extended APL" standard, which is what GNU APL strives to follow.

            – Tobia
            Jan 17 '15 at 14:58











          • Dyalog APL's default has lately been changed to ⎕ML 1, and all new code developed by Dyalog adheres to this. Source: I work there.

            – Adám
            Dec 31 '15 at 19:00











          • From version 16.0, Dyalog APL will have both partitioning primitives available simultaneously when ⎕ML←1: is the Dyalog definition (partitioned enclose) while is the APL2 definition (partition).

            – Adám
            Jan 16 '17 at 19:22











          Your Answer






          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
          StackExchange.snippets.init();
          });
          });
          }, "code-snippets");

          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "1"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f27936301%2fpartition-behaviour-in-gnu-apl-and-dyalog-apl%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          5














          The short answer is no, because GNU APL follows IBM APL2 language conventions.



          The core APL language was developed and perfected by the mid 1970s. However, Nested Arrays started coming a bit later, perhaps the first preliminary sneak peek implementations came out starting around 1980.



          The major players at the time were IBM, I. P. Sharp Associates, STSC, and Dyalog, a relative newcomer. All nested array implementations differed in one detail or another, arguably the biggest such difference was the implementation of boxed arrays by Sharp which were the basis of the boxed array implementation found today in J.



          Arguably, at the time, Mainframe IBM APL2 probably had the largest market share.



          STSC would later change its name to Manugistics and the implementation would evolve into APL2000's APL+ product suite.



          Both STSC and Dyalog provided some compatibility mode around the various nested array subspecies, STSC's was the )EVLEVEL system command, evolution level, and Dyalog's was ML, migration level.



          In a nutshell, Dyalog's ML can be set to 0, 1, 2, or 3. From Dyalog's documentation,



          ML 0 is the default native Dyalog nested array implementation



          ML 1 changes the definition of monadic epsilon to be the "enlist" function, a kind of super-ravel



          ML 2 swaps the definitions of the symbols used for the "first" and "mix" functions, plus presents an alternate definition of the "depth" function



          ML 3 provides IBM APL2 compatibility.



          Personally, I use ML 3 almost exclusively, as I programmed heavily in APL2 when mainframes were still around.



          Again, GNU APL follows IBM APL2 language compatibility. One way to achieve alternate enclose behaviours is to write cover functions to emulate the specialities of other implementations.






          share|improve this answer


























          • Thanks! Maybe I should just build ⎕ML into gnuapl!

            – alexweiner
            Jan 15 '15 at 0:41











          • One of the countless religious discussion points is whether it is a Good Thing to be able to change language features on the fly. With such awesome power comes awesome responsibility and all that.

            – Lobachevsky
            Jan 15 '15 at 8:01






          • 1





            I would like to add that a few years ago a number of experts made a great effort to analyze the behaviour of existing APL interpreters and distilled the state of the art into the ISO/IEC 13751:2001 "Extended APL" standard, which is what GNU APL strives to follow.

            – Tobia
            Jan 17 '15 at 14:58











          • Dyalog APL's default has lately been changed to ⎕ML 1, and all new code developed by Dyalog adheres to this. Source: I work there.

            – Adám
            Dec 31 '15 at 19:00











          • From version 16.0, Dyalog APL will have both partitioning primitives available simultaneously when ⎕ML←1: is the Dyalog definition (partitioned enclose) while is the APL2 definition (partition).

            – Adám
            Jan 16 '17 at 19:22
















          5














          The short answer is no, because GNU APL follows IBM APL2 language conventions.



          The core APL language was developed and perfected by the mid 1970s. However, Nested Arrays started coming a bit later, perhaps the first preliminary sneak peek implementations came out starting around 1980.



          The major players at the time were IBM, I. P. Sharp Associates, STSC, and Dyalog, a relative newcomer. All nested array implementations differed in one detail or another, arguably the biggest such difference was the implementation of boxed arrays by Sharp which were the basis of the boxed array implementation found today in J.



          Arguably, at the time, Mainframe IBM APL2 probably had the largest market share.



          STSC would later change its name to Manugistics and the implementation would evolve into APL2000's APL+ product suite.



          Both STSC and Dyalog provided some compatibility mode around the various nested array subspecies, STSC's was the )EVLEVEL system command, evolution level, and Dyalog's was ML, migration level.



          In a nutshell, Dyalog's ML can be set to 0, 1, 2, or 3. From Dyalog's documentation,



          ML 0 is the default native Dyalog nested array implementation



          ML 1 changes the definition of monadic epsilon to be the "enlist" function, a kind of super-ravel



          ML 2 swaps the definitions of the symbols used for the "first" and "mix" functions, plus presents an alternate definition of the "depth" function



          ML 3 provides IBM APL2 compatibility.



          Personally, I use ML 3 almost exclusively, as I programmed heavily in APL2 when mainframes were still around.



          Again, GNU APL follows IBM APL2 language compatibility. One way to achieve alternate enclose behaviours is to write cover functions to emulate the specialities of other implementations.






          share|improve this answer


























          • Thanks! Maybe I should just build ⎕ML into gnuapl!

            – alexweiner
            Jan 15 '15 at 0:41











          • One of the countless religious discussion points is whether it is a Good Thing to be able to change language features on the fly. With such awesome power comes awesome responsibility and all that.

            – Lobachevsky
            Jan 15 '15 at 8:01






          • 1





            I would like to add that a few years ago a number of experts made a great effort to analyze the behaviour of existing APL interpreters and distilled the state of the art into the ISO/IEC 13751:2001 "Extended APL" standard, which is what GNU APL strives to follow.

            – Tobia
            Jan 17 '15 at 14:58











          • Dyalog APL's default has lately been changed to ⎕ML 1, and all new code developed by Dyalog adheres to this. Source: I work there.

            – Adám
            Dec 31 '15 at 19:00











          • From version 16.0, Dyalog APL will have both partitioning primitives available simultaneously when ⎕ML←1: is the Dyalog definition (partitioned enclose) while is the APL2 definition (partition).

            – Adám
            Jan 16 '17 at 19:22














          5












          5








          5







          The short answer is no, because GNU APL follows IBM APL2 language conventions.



          The core APL language was developed and perfected by the mid 1970s. However, Nested Arrays started coming a bit later, perhaps the first preliminary sneak peek implementations came out starting around 1980.



          The major players at the time were IBM, I. P. Sharp Associates, STSC, and Dyalog, a relative newcomer. All nested array implementations differed in one detail or another, arguably the biggest such difference was the implementation of boxed arrays by Sharp which were the basis of the boxed array implementation found today in J.



          Arguably, at the time, Mainframe IBM APL2 probably had the largest market share.



          STSC would later change its name to Manugistics and the implementation would evolve into APL2000's APL+ product suite.



          Both STSC and Dyalog provided some compatibility mode around the various nested array subspecies, STSC's was the )EVLEVEL system command, evolution level, and Dyalog's was ML, migration level.



          In a nutshell, Dyalog's ML can be set to 0, 1, 2, or 3. From Dyalog's documentation,



          ML 0 is the default native Dyalog nested array implementation



          ML 1 changes the definition of monadic epsilon to be the "enlist" function, a kind of super-ravel



          ML 2 swaps the definitions of the symbols used for the "first" and "mix" functions, plus presents an alternate definition of the "depth" function



          ML 3 provides IBM APL2 compatibility.



          Personally, I use ML 3 almost exclusively, as I programmed heavily in APL2 when mainframes were still around.



          Again, GNU APL follows IBM APL2 language compatibility. One way to achieve alternate enclose behaviours is to write cover functions to emulate the specialities of other implementations.






          share|improve this answer















          The short answer is no, because GNU APL follows IBM APL2 language conventions.



          The core APL language was developed and perfected by the mid 1970s. However, Nested Arrays started coming a bit later, perhaps the first preliminary sneak peek implementations came out starting around 1980.



          The major players at the time were IBM, I. P. Sharp Associates, STSC, and Dyalog, a relative newcomer. All nested array implementations differed in one detail or another, arguably the biggest such difference was the implementation of boxed arrays by Sharp which were the basis of the boxed array implementation found today in J.



          Arguably, at the time, Mainframe IBM APL2 probably had the largest market share.



          STSC would later change its name to Manugistics and the implementation would evolve into APL2000's APL+ product suite.



          Both STSC and Dyalog provided some compatibility mode around the various nested array subspecies, STSC's was the )EVLEVEL system command, evolution level, and Dyalog's was ML, migration level.



          In a nutshell, Dyalog's ML can be set to 0, 1, 2, or 3. From Dyalog's documentation,



          ML 0 is the default native Dyalog nested array implementation



          ML 1 changes the definition of monadic epsilon to be the "enlist" function, a kind of super-ravel



          ML 2 swaps the definitions of the symbols used for the "first" and "mix" functions, plus presents an alternate definition of the "depth" function



          ML 3 provides IBM APL2 compatibility.



          Personally, I use ML 3 almost exclusively, as I programmed heavily in APL2 when mainframes were still around.



          Again, GNU APL follows IBM APL2 language compatibility. One way to achieve alternate enclose behaviours is to write cover functions to emulate the specialities of other implementations.







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited Jan 14 '15 at 13:00

























          answered Jan 14 '15 at 11:04









          LobachevskyLobachevsky

          952615




          952615













          • Thanks! Maybe I should just build ⎕ML into gnuapl!

            – alexweiner
            Jan 15 '15 at 0:41











          • One of the countless religious discussion points is whether it is a Good Thing to be able to change language features on the fly. With such awesome power comes awesome responsibility and all that.

            – Lobachevsky
            Jan 15 '15 at 8:01






          • 1





            I would like to add that a few years ago a number of experts made a great effort to analyze the behaviour of existing APL interpreters and distilled the state of the art into the ISO/IEC 13751:2001 "Extended APL" standard, which is what GNU APL strives to follow.

            – Tobia
            Jan 17 '15 at 14:58











          • Dyalog APL's default has lately been changed to ⎕ML 1, and all new code developed by Dyalog adheres to this. Source: I work there.

            – Adám
            Dec 31 '15 at 19:00











          • From version 16.0, Dyalog APL will have both partitioning primitives available simultaneously when ⎕ML←1: is the Dyalog definition (partitioned enclose) while is the APL2 definition (partition).

            – Adám
            Jan 16 '17 at 19:22



















          • Thanks! Maybe I should just build ⎕ML into gnuapl!

            – alexweiner
            Jan 15 '15 at 0:41











          • One of the countless religious discussion points is whether it is a Good Thing to be able to change language features on the fly. With such awesome power comes awesome responsibility and all that.

            – Lobachevsky
            Jan 15 '15 at 8:01






          • 1





            I would like to add that a few years ago a number of experts made a great effort to analyze the behaviour of existing APL interpreters and distilled the state of the art into the ISO/IEC 13751:2001 "Extended APL" standard, which is what GNU APL strives to follow.

            – Tobia
            Jan 17 '15 at 14:58











          • Dyalog APL's default has lately been changed to ⎕ML 1, and all new code developed by Dyalog adheres to this. Source: I work there.

            – Adám
            Dec 31 '15 at 19:00











          • From version 16.0, Dyalog APL will have both partitioning primitives available simultaneously when ⎕ML←1: is the Dyalog definition (partitioned enclose) while is the APL2 definition (partition).

            – Adám
            Jan 16 '17 at 19:22

















          Thanks! Maybe I should just build ⎕ML into gnuapl!

          – alexweiner
          Jan 15 '15 at 0:41





          Thanks! Maybe I should just build ⎕ML into gnuapl!

          – alexweiner
          Jan 15 '15 at 0:41













          One of the countless religious discussion points is whether it is a Good Thing to be able to change language features on the fly. With such awesome power comes awesome responsibility and all that.

          – Lobachevsky
          Jan 15 '15 at 8:01





          One of the countless religious discussion points is whether it is a Good Thing to be able to change language features on the fly. With such awesome power comes awesome responsibility and all that.

          – Lobachevsky
          Jan 15 '15 at 8:01




          1




          1





          I would like to add that a few years ago a number of experts made a great effort to analyze the behaviour of existing APL interpreters and distilled the state of the art into the ISO/IEC 13751:2001 "Extended APL" standard, which is what GNU APL strives to follow.

          – Tobia
          Jan 17 '15 at 14:58





          I would like to add that a few years ago a number of experts made a great effort to analyze the behaviour of existing APL interpreters and distilled the state of the art into the ISO/IEC 13751:2001 "Extended APL" standard, which is what GNU APL strives to follow.

          – Tobia
          Jan 17 '15 at 14:58













          Dyalog APL's default has lately been changed to ⎕ML 1, and all new code developed by Dyalog adheres to this. Source: I work there.

          – Adám
          Dec 31 '15 at 19:00





          Dyalog APL's default has lately been changed to ⎕ML 1, and all new code developed by Dyalog adheres to this. Source: I work there.

          – Adám
          Dec 31 '15 at 19:00













          From version 16.0, Dyalog APL will have both partitioning primitives available simultaneously when ⎕ML←1: is the Dyalog definition (partitioned enclose) while is the APL2 definition (partition).

          – Adám
          Jan 16 '17 at 19:22





          From version 16.0, Dyalog APL will have both partitioning primitives available simultaneously when ⎕ML←1: is the Dyalog definition (partitioned enclose) while is the APL2 definition (partition).

          – Adám
          Jan 16 '17 at 19:22




















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f27936301%2fpartition-behaviour-in-gnu-apl-and-dyalog-apl%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          404 Error Contact Form 7 ajax form submitting

          How to know if a Active Directory user can login interactively

          TypeError: fit_transform() missing 1 required positional argument: 'X'