There’s no sane way of talking about a “derivative of >” You said it shouldn’t concern itself with functions meant for dealing with boxed arguments, which > is an example of. If you’re not willing to state your numeric function in terms of functions dealing with numeric arguments only, you should be blamed.
There is ]. This is not by design meant for boxed-only arguments. >3 works only as a convenience. Semantically, it’s crap. I think it should be undefined behaviour officially. Open to be changed to produce an error without notice. Don’t misunderstand me: I like using &.> and the like. But I think it’s working against intended semantics and always consider using > on unboxed arguments a hack. Am 16.01.21 um 20:12 schrieb Raul Miller: > >3 > 3 > -- ---------------------- mail written using NEO neo-layout.org ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
