RM=Raul Miller, DB=me: RM> I. becoming tolerant would be a breaking change RM> in the language ... So I do not consider potential RM> language change to be a valid design issue.
I have less confidence in this inference than you do, especially in the context of tolerance (or other implementation, as opposed to notation, changes) [1]. DB> Nested trains can definitely be leveraged to re-use calculations. RM> I usually prefer to avoid such approaches To each his own, of course. And my threshold for "going explicit" is higher than most. -Dan [1] Though the fact that I.'s intolerance is called out in its very definition is a good sign (OTOH, it could also just be a warning; I suspect if Roger could've easily made I. tolerant, he would have, and I.'s intolerance stems from fundamental difficulties in providing tolerance, or reliance on other intolerance functions). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
