I disagree. The derivative of > is exactly the same as the derivative of ]
Both work on boxed arguments. Both produce the same result on numeric arguments. The derivative of ] is the same as the derivative of -@- -@- does not work on boxed arguments, but has the same result on numeric arguments as ] does. This is simple, straightforward mathematics. Non-numeric domains are irrelevant in this context. Note also that 4: accepts boxed arguments, and has a derivative. We ignore that we cannot take the difference between two boxes in that example. Thanks, -- Raul On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 2:21 PM 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
