Go for it. Thanks,
-- Raul On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 9:33 AM, Devon McCormick <[email protected]> wrote: > Before "improvements" like this, it would be nice to fix long-standing bugs > like this: > 13 : 'y+y' > + > > > On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 9:15 AM, Raul Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > >> (Inspired by a conversation...) >> >> Currently, 13 : tries to form a tacit verb. >> >> But that doesn't always work, and it falls back to composing a 3 : or >> 4 : definition depending on the presence of x. >> >> Of course, sometimes the resulting verb has an empty domain: >> >> 13 : '(x' >> >> But there's another option, in some cases, which is that it could be >> forming an adverb. >> >> In other words, >> >> 13 : 'x&+ y' >> >> could return >> >> 1 : 'm&+ y' >> >> Something for the todo list... >> >> Thanks, >> >> -- >> Raul >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm >> > > > > -- > Devon McCormick, CFA > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
