A dyad x f y in J is defined so that x&f is a more
sensible function than f&y , unless there is
a firmly entrenched argument order. In the cases
of | and %, the judgment is that m&| ("modulo m")
is more useful than |&i , and there is little
chance of convincing people that % should be
"divided into" rather than % .
The existence of passive (~) takes the sting off
having the wrong order.
----- Original Message -----
From: Terrence Brannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 11:05 am
Subject: [Jgeneral] Why does the Residue function take its arguments in
"reverse" order
> It seems that the Residue function should follow the same argument
> order as %
>
> It does not seem consistent or intuitive for the arguments to be
> reversed.
> What motivated this decision? I spent 5 minutes about to tear my
> hair out trying
> to figure out the results I was getting from Residue.
>
> 7 % 2
> 3.5
> 2 | 7 NB. would be 7 | 2 if I were designing J :)
> 1
>
>
> I'm sorry to ask what seem like such nitpicky little questions,
> but I got a
> great answer regarding Passive, so perhaps I am just ignorant of
> some loftier
> motivation for such argument calling conventions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
