Raul wrote: > We could create a fork adverb (which returned a > conjunction which creates a fork). > x (f g F h) y > (f g F h) y > >I suspect that long verb trains such as > (a b c d e f g h) y > would require parenthesis, but have not worked > through any examples recently, to be sure of this.
A bit deeper into one of the threads I cited earlier: Erling Hellenäs writes (A): > Or you could have some special syntax: ( x y z F: ) for a fork, for > example. and Roger responds (B): > So, instead of writing (f + g + h + v), you'd write > (f + (g + (h + v F:) F:) F:) . I fail to see why the > latter is better. I agree with Roger. Special quoting parens, like (:): might be different. -Dan (A) http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/general/2006-January/026311.html (B) http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/general/2006-January/026312.html -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Regrets-tp14459630s24193p14461789.html Sent from the J General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
