Sure, P, as any other name, can be redefined. Should we stop using them all? (Actually, we generate strictly nameless tacit function-level code virtually everywhere for production at work for this and many other reasons.) Some primitives also come and go over time. I would not miss cap much (the other use of cap might be useful but it is easily replaceable as well, as I showed in the spoiler) but, must likely, cap is here to stay and it does not bother me at all either. I would still be watching for the forceful compelling argument for its introduction. Who knows? Maybe I will use cap again someday but so far, even after cap’s subsequent enhancements, I prefer to pass. However, the notion that it is necessary to "make it possible to define a wider range of functions as unbroken trains" seems to me, even if one were splitting hairs, dubious at best depending of what the meaning of "unbroken" is according to the dictionary (to be fair, and to my knowledge, the dictionary does not state anywhere that cap is necessary).
----- Original Message ---- From: Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Programming forum <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 11:46:01 AM Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] J Myths Puzzles On 2/21/08, Jose Mario Quintana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But if you define P=. @:] once, you would not save any characters > afterwards by using cap. Am I missing something? P can be redefined, and so is not suitable for use by the system in the general case (for example, linear display of the verb P which has the definition >. % [: <. + * -). Also I think a verb with an empty domain is useful in its own right. For example : [: -- 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
