> 11 is no longer a valid right argument to : (Explicit), what > did it mean back then?
11 : was to 1 : as 13 : is to 3 : . That is, 11 : (attempted) to produce a tacit version of the explicit adverb given in the string. You could write an equivalent tacit adverb today as ([:`) (`(0 = ])) (`:6) (+`) (`:6) . -Dan PS: There was also 12 : (convert to tacit conjunction) . My memory is trying to tell me that 14 : was also valid, and converted strings to tacit dyads, but that doesn't make much sense. Unless it was equivalent to [: : (13 :) ? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
