On 13 December 2012 23:23, Raul Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > Ok, I can see your point of view. > > That said, the DoJ is not the implementation.
I consider what the DoJ says to be the final authority on how each primitive in J works. In the case of #., we are free to assume that its implementation *may* conform to the Horner's rule, but we may not assume that it *must* do so. That is why I had to disagree when you said that "J's #. implements Horner's rule"; the word 'implementation' here refers not to the implementation of J but to J's definition. For the same reason, the part about Horner's rule in J in rosettacode must be considered misleading. Of course, there are other ways to implement the Horner's rule in J, including one I discussed (along with definitions of related verbs and other related issues) here: http://jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2006-September/003238.html The definition from your last post is another option. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
