On Dec 21, 2007 2:03 PM, Dan Bron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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?
I am not concerned with "ugly". I am not even sure what "ugly" means. I am concerned with legibility. Currently, we often have to represent hooks as (f (g)) because g is a train and counting long trains to determine syntax is not nice. That said, the backwards compatability argument (lots of existing J code uses bident hooks) is a compelling argument against any change in bident. I was just wondering if there were other compelling arguments that I could understand. -- Raul > > 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 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
