On Mon, 27 Sep 2021, Henry Rich wrote:
All I would be interested in reading is a SHORT example of something that can't be done without changing the language.
Currently possible, but very inconvenient: define a 'hook' conjunction tacitly. (Useless as such, but useful if one wishes to produce a hook from a tacit modifier, as I did.) I was able to come up with the following abomination: ']. (([:(]: ]: ])) (]:~) [) [.'. Compare with the explicit {{u v}}. (It simplifies if one cares only about the monadic case, which was the case for me, but not by much.)
I propose a conjunctive fork: interpret C0 C1 (which is currently meaningless) as (u C0 v) (u C1 v).
This doesn't solve the more general problem of producing arbitrary forks-- _some_ arrangement of C0 C1 C2 should give u C0 v u C1 v u C2 v --but would still be helpful.
-E ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
