I would like students to experiment with tryAPL while manipulating word lists such as gist.githubusercontent.com/paulcc/3799331/raw/…

Or could we have access through TryAPL to such small "datasets" ? or through downloadable .tryapl workspaces ?

I think a GitHub repo with Jupyter notebooks may work better for that purpose. It is possible to run them online via Binder (and run APL programs on the fly) and you can put the necessary data files on the same directory (not 100% sure if GET requests are allowed on Binder)

@Bubbler Thanks for your suggestion !

HI, is there a public share-space to write APL online?

@rapasite What do you mean by share space? TryAPL allows to run code and save the session into a file, which can be shared.

I mean real time multi user programming online

like we connect to same tryapl session at the same time

AFAIK it's not supported in TryAPL or RIDE, and the main argument was "what would happen if multiple users try to type their own code at the same time?"

what about multi cursors and sharing the processors to execute?

I know those are hard to implement though.

@brgal You can easily create a .tryapl file which you can host on somewhere. Students can then load it from the File tab. Unfortunately, I don't think we're enabled loading a workspace in the TryAPL URL yet.) E.g. I created this .tryapl file as follows:

#.gistfile1 ⍝ matrix
#.gistfile1,⍨⍤1←'data⍪←'''
#.gistfile1,⍤1←''''
#.gistfile1,←'⋄'
gistfile1←,#.gistfile1

Then I pasted that into TryAPL and saved it.

@Adám Great ! Thanks a lot ! This is perfect for what I have to do !

@rapasite What you can do is have a shared network file location, and use Link on the shared location. Each programmer then has their own interpreter, but any code changes from anyone will immediately be reflected in everyone's session.

Of course, if two people edit a single item simultaneously, the last one to save will have a choice of overwriting the previous state.

codegolf.stackexchange.com/a/143133 - This can be written as ⊃⌽⍸b⍷⍨∨⌿↑⊆⍨b←⌽2⊥⍣¯1⊢⎕, right? It's 1 character fewer.

Is it considered less readable/bad style to use so many ⍨s?

no

nice golf

I'm exploring the code golf stack exchange and it's soo interesting

@rabbitgrowth Quite on the contrary. I much prefer ⍨ over parentheses. I've updated the post – thanks!

@Adám in 2020 p5, was there a particular reason for requesting the input as a vector with two elements, instead of just making it a normal dyad?

@xpqz Yes.

:D Didn't I write a blog post about this....

I found this question interesting and decided to give it a go: codegolf.stackexchange.com/a/235860/107246 This can probably be improved a lot, but I did my best. Would love to hear your comments!

Thanks @ovs for your comments, they were eye-opening. Am I expected to edit my post to use your latest version, or should I keep it as is so that people can better see the evolution?

@rabbitgrowth The history is preserved on your post.

Got it. Think it will take me a while to come up with a good way to explain ≢⍉↑↑ in the breakdown though :p

Thank you everyone, I really enjoyed this.

Announcement: Join me live for the last episode in my Error Handling webinar series in half an hour.