Dan Bron: > I was trying to find if you had any objections > to use of a hook conjunction, which I would > agree with, in the context of allowing (f g) x to > be equivalent to f g x
My objection to the hook conjunction is that it's often uglier than the current bident. Further, I do not see the value of providing that equivalence. Do you have a compelling example? Are there any other candidates for the interpretation of 2-train? Does anyone have other ideas for the definition of (f g) ? > I was not asking if you thought the hook conjunction > would be be superior to the bident hook. More to the point, I believe it inferior, rather than not-superior. On the other hand, an example of where I would prefer it just occured to me. I mentioned that it might be nicer at the right edge of a long train. But it actually might have more value on the left side. Compare: (f0 f1) f2 f3 f4 f5 f0 h. f1 f2 f3 f4 f5 But, given that the true equivalence of (f g) is f h. (g) we can't always escape the parens. -Dan -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Regrets-tp14459630s24193p14460656.html Sent from the J General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
