I am removing the extended discussion of a proposed "overlay model", leaving only a discussion of prototypes and matching. My reasons:
- The source is not public. This is not a valid citation, because readers and editors can't access it. This means the writer presents only their take on the source. Editors who might improve the section have no way to know what parts were left out, and no way to present a different viewpoint. It promotes the idea that APL Wiki is some sort of insiders club.
- The quotes disagree with the idea that the overlay model is useful (as do I). Clearly the idea has little support among APLers as a whole.
If this idea were published it would of course be worth citing. Even then the play-by-play accounting of reactions to the overlay model is far too much. You wouldn't write a whole section on one conversation's worth of reactions to a primitive, would you? Why do this for a particular presentation of an edge case of a primitive? --Marshall (talk) 13:54, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- Good call. I've moved the extended discussion to Dyalog's forums, and included an amended model which accurately reflects the primitive as commonly implemented Adám Brudzewsky 16:36, 23 August 2022 (UTC)