L-one-two-three (L1:..L2:..L3:) considered harmful

  • Authors:

  • F. H. D. van Batenburg

  • Affiliations:

  • Institute for Theoretical Biology, Kaiserstraat 63, 2311GP Leiden, The Netherlands

  • Venue:
  • APL '91 Proceedings of the international conference on APL '91
  • Year:
  • 1991

Quantified Score

Hi-index 0.00

Visualization

Abstract

It is said by non-APL-programmers that APL code is hard to read and that it is unstructured. Here we argue that APL-programmers may refute this assertion by pointing out some misunderstandings, but admittedly a final analysis will show a deeper truth in these criticisms. We will show that APL gives ample opportunity for unstructured code. Two proposals are presented to address this problem.The first rejects the developed convention for labelling and suggests the adoption of a proper style of programming enforced by a new standard of labelling. This standard will abolish unstructured code. Both negative and positive aspects of this proposal are discussed.The second proposal revives an old idea of introducing one single proper control structure into the language. This would make the current jump (→) superfluous and enforce structured code.