Perhaps it's time to go back to physics,
and denote a "non-atomic array" to be a molecule.
I find this has a certain appeal, in that it's clear
that the thing we're talking about is an assembly of atoms.
Bob
On Sat, 2007-10-13 at 08:32 -0700, Roger Hui wrote:
> Should be }. instead of {. .
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Henry Rich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Saturday, October 13, 2007 8:26
> Subject: RE: [Jgeneral] paradoxes - (2) Behead (1) arrays
> To: 'General forum' <[email protected]>
>
> > The key concept is that of 'item'. An array (no, wait, a
> > non-atomic array) is a list of its items. Many of J's
> > primitives treat the items as unbreakable.
> >
> > {. removes the first item. That leaves 0 items. The
> > shape of an item remains unchanged, but there are still
> > 0 of them.
> >
> > So 1 - 1 is indeed zero. In fact, the way J does it is
> > the only way to make that true. If the shape of
> > {. 1 1 $ 67
> > were not 0 1, you would be taking one item from one item
> > and being left with something other than 0 items.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
