*fixed points
On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 at 22:35, Justin Paston-Cooper <[email protected]> wrote: > > The fixed point of a function is a well-defined concept. > > On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 at 22:21, Hauke Rehr <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
