Sure, anyone could argue that trains containing adverbs are not "unbroken trains" but it seems, to me, that the interpreter displays them as "unbroken trains", if my vision is not deceiving me. Granted, the dictionary is not defining sharply the “unbroken” term but this just adds more support to my question: Why a superfluous anomaly had to be introduced?
I had been trying, since the cap’s inception, to figure out what the advantages were (apart from saving one or two characters). The question was not originally rhetorical but I am afraid it is becoming one from my perspective; yet, I keep my mind open just in case one day someone can provide the compelling reason. ----- Original Message ---- From: Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Programming forum <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 5:59:17 PM Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] J Myths Puzzles You could argue that trains containing adverbs are not "unbroken trains" - instead they are trains mixed with adverbial forms. Alternatively, without a precise distinction between "broken" and "unbroken" challenges based on this distinction do not seem very interesting. -- 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
