On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 12:11 PM, bill lam <[email protected]> wrote: > I do not quite understand your suggestion, did you mean change > the semantics of u: ? I hope not since it will break existing > codes and I consider existing behaviour ok.
I do not understand his proposal either. But, current behavior of u: is incomplete. We need 32 bit wide characters or we cannot properly support unicode. But, I would not want to change the behavior of u: for current non-error contexts. I also would like 9!:7 to accept character types wider than 8 bit. I recognize that this carries an efficiency penalty, but I am not certain why that should matter. -- Raul ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
