Hi Raul, why is it not equivalent? I thought [: f g was always the same as [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [: +/ ] <[EMAIL PROTECTED] [ ^ 1 + [: i. <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Note that I "have to" use [: i. <[EMAIL PROTECTED] because i.@<[EMAIL > PROTECTED] is not equivalent, even > for scalar arguments. (Try this next example both ways to see what I mean.) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
