Thank you Raul for an example of differences.
The biggest mystery to me is how adding the 1 : 0 multiline boilerplate is different from adding ]:/1 :'u' adverb or no adverb at all. hmmm... actualy what the explicit code does is ensure that expression results in a verb, and will not result in an adverb, even though the expression prior to f. may still return modifiers, and then f. will apply after the potential modifier is bound. ...Well I'm guessing here rather than understanding clearly. On Wednesday, February 9, 2022, 03:05:43 p.m. EST, Raul Miller <rauldmil...@gmail.com> wrote: On Wed, Feb 9, 2022 at 2:04 PM 'Pascal Jasmin' via Programming <programm...@jsoftware.com> wrote: > I can't say I understand how adding 1: 0 to the f. result changes how $: > applying to its entire new verb phrase "complications" gets avoided in any > way. > > , 1 : ' u@cut f.' It's not avoided -- $: represents the entire tacit verb (named 'u' in this context). What's avoided is $: representing the ,@cut verb. In this particular case, that would not be a fatal problem, but in other examples avoiding this issue would be important. Try <1 :'u@cut' 'a b c' and compare with <1 :'u@(cut f.) f.' 'a b c' for a small example of this correctness issue. Thanks, -- Raul ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
