"u&n is already defined." Right, I realized that after I posted it. :(
Some of us, for clarity, use @ instead of @: only when it really makes a difference. That is why I would prefer to write u@:n instead of u@n . The from u&:n would be just to extend the monadic equivalence u&:v <=> u@:v for n instead of v . Thanks On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 5:46 AM, Henry Rich <[email protected]> wrote: > u&n is already defined. Perhaps should do @: . > > Henry Rich > > On Aug 12, 2017 00:15, "Jose Mario Quintana" < > [email protected]> > wrote: > > > I like both: u@n and u::n . However, I wonder why u&n , u&:n and > > particularly u@:n were not implemented. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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
