No; the simple testcase is
a =.'this';'is'
(1:@}. ; {.) a_:
a_: causes the 2-word list to be inplaceable. {. creates a new block
from a, and then a is passed into 1:@}. as an abandoned block. The }.
then creates its result as a virtual block.
The bug was that the code attempted to avoid the expense of incrementing
the usecount of the abandoned block a by instead removing it from the
list of blocks awaiting free; but in this case a is needed not for
itself but because it is the backing block for the result of {. . The
fix was to increment the usecount of the abandoned block.
Henry Rich
On 7/1/2022 7:07 PM, Raul Miller wrote:
This suggests that <;._2 in cut internally uses {. to generate its result?
Or have I misunderstood?
Thanks,
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
