On Sun, Aug 13, 2023 at 1:55 AM Elijah Stone <[email protected]> wrote: > I will note that, with my proposed n:, this would be trivial: (0&, + > ,&0)^:(2&^ n:)@1
I'm not sure I remember your proposal, but I imagine that Y: would be a better name (for what I think this would be doing) than n: (If x: was not already in use, then I imagine y: would have been a better choice than Y: but that would be getting into hypothetical changes in a hypothetical universe...) -- Raul ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
