The goal, I think, is to make the old documents useful to users of
Modern J. To that end, there is no need tio discuss the additions that
have been made to the language. Only deletions and changes are important.
The ObsoleteSyntax page already mentions constants. It doesn't mention
deleted primitives - I will add that presently. I don't think the other
changes deserve mention. The only incompatible change is to [email protected] and
the new definition will work with any example found in the old documents.
I think just adding a pointer to ObsoleteSyntax where such syntax is
used will give the reader the help they need.
Henry Rich
On 9/22/2021 2:03 PM, Raul Miller wrote:
Hmm...
I see a variety of changes in the recent release notes which are not
covered by the current version of the ObsoleteSyntax page.
I am part way through the j901 release notes, and I am reminded that
some primitives have been removed, and that a variety of primitives
have changed (along with some new treatment of constants).
The easiest thing for me to do would be to update all dictionary pages
which have had their subject matter altered with this caution link.
But that suggests adding potentially considerable content to the
ObsoleteSyntax page.
I guess, for lack of any better insight, I might as well prepare a
pull request which does this. But that leaves unhandled the potential
ObsoleteSyntax changes. Would it make sense to add a section there,
linking to the three j90x release notes?
Thanks,
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
