I think that Roger & Ken have said that if they had it to do over, they would define @ and @: the other way.
(IIRC, when @ was defined, @: didn't exist) But to change now? The problem is not so much changing code as it is maintaining code to run on new- and old-style systems. Not worth thinking about, I'd say. Henry Rich > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Raul Miller > Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 9:51 PM > To: General forum > Subject: Re: [Jgeneral] subjunctive J -- @ v. @: and & v. & > > On 9/5/07, Oleg Kobchenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On the other hand, faster and shorter does not always mean > logical and > > consistent. > > > > Conj @ preserves the rank and @: kills it, so @ is more basic. > > Using the inflection shows you mean something special: speed. > > I am not comfortable with this mode of expression -- it does not > seem to convey any ideas to someone who does not already > understand how these work. More properly, neither "kills" rank, > from my point of view -- all verys retain their own rank. The > question is: what is the rank of the derived verb? > > Currently, u@:v is ([: u v) and [EMAIL PROTECTED] is u@:v"v > > -- > Raul > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see > http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
