Yet
2: (0 0$0)
does not give a domain error. There is a fine line between consistency
and dogma.
Roger Hui wrote:
It is not any feeling that relaxing the rule in this specific case
will be a cause of later regret as sticking to a general principle.
As I recall, there was no change in this area, just a more
consistent and systematic enforcement of the rule.
----- Original Message -----
From: Dan Bron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Monday, October 29, 2007 13:31
Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] Current time: behaviour
To: Programming forum <[email protected]>
Roger wrote:
a. I disagree that the functions in questions should be
niladic.
I agree. Though there are other ways to interpret the
phrase "should-be-niladic" (which don't involve admitting zero-
argument verbs into the language).
it is better to be strict now than to be
sorry about being lax later.
Fair enough. Can you sketch an example (or two) where
permitting an arbitrary argument to such a function would cause
us to be sorry later? And, out of historical interest,
what prompted the change when it occured?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|\/| Randy A MacDonald | APL: If you can say it, it's done.. (ram)
|/\| ramacd <at> nbnet.nb.ca |
|\ | | The only real problem with APL is that
BSc(Math) UNBF'83 | it is "still ahead of its time."
Sapere Aude | - Morten Kromberg
Natural Born APL'er |
-----------------------------------------------------(INTP)----{ gnat }-
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
