[skruger]

Yes, it's either an array (if A, B and C are arrays), a function derived via the dyadic operator B, with operands A and C being either arrays or functions, a dyadic function call of the dyadic function B (A and C are arrays), or the sequential monadic application of functions A and B to array C, or a derived function as the tacit fork (A, B and C are functions). Did I miss anything?

[abrudz]

Yes, it can also a fork where A is an array while B and C are function and a tacit atop where either B is a monadic operator and A its array or function operand or A is a function and C is a monadic operator with B being its array or function operand. Finally, it can be a single derived function where B and C are monadic operators while A is B's array or function operand.

[boxed]

Do APL programmers think this is a good thing? It sounds a lot like how I feel about currying in language that have it (meaning it's terrible because code can't be reasoned about locally, only with a ton of surrounding context, the entire program in the worst case)

[UncleEntity]

>> Did I miss anything?

Derived operators?

And, 'A B C' as an array isn't valid (ISO) APL but an extension, the 'array syntax' only covers numbers and the parser is supposed to treat is as a single token.

Your useless information of the day...

[yvdriess]

And they could be 0- or 1- indexed? :P