My inclination is that it is correct in enforcing that the obverse of the obverse is the original function. I'm open to good reasons why this isn't always the case, but I think if you need to break this rule, then what you're looking for probably isn't the obverse. Using &. in this case will just complicate the code.
Marshall On Sun, Nov 04, 2012 at 10:17:37PM -0500, Henry Rich wrote: > Yes, that seems wrong. It should be > > i. :.+ > > shouldn't it? > > Henry Rich > > On 11/4/2012 10:15 PM, km wrote: > >Henry, what do you make of > > > > i. :. (i. :. +) b. _1 > >i. :.+ :.i. > > > >? > > > >Kip Murray > > > >Sent from my iPad > > > > > >On Nov 4, 2012, at 5:45 PM, Henry Rich <henryhr...@nc.rr.com> wrote: > > > >> i. :. (i. :. +) ^:_1 ^:_1 ]5 > >>0 1 2 3 4 > >> > >>The obverse of i. :. (i. :. +) should be (i. :. +), and > >>the obverse of that should be + . I think. But it isn't. > >> > >>Henry Rich > >>---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
