I, for one, love 0. However, cap does something: "[: signals error on any argument." Yet, the behavior of a fork is exceptional when a cap is at the beginning, then the middle verb acts monadically instead of dyadically. It is this apparent “spooky action at a distance” that bothers some functional programmers.
The controversy is neverending, some prefer to avoid @, some [:, and others none. ________________________________________ From: programming-boun...@jsoftware.com [programming-boun...@jsoftware.com] On Behalf Of Kip Murray [k...@math.uh.edu] Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 4:22 PM To: Programming forum Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] FW: A simple function Here is my attempt to make [: lovable. You love 0, don’t you? g When f is [: in the diagram at left / \ the left branch disappears and you f h get the diagram below: “I do nothing” | | [: is like “I am nothing” 0 . y y g \ h | y g Also here when f is [: the left / \ branch disappears and you get f h the diagram below: “I do nothing” / \ / \ [: is like “I am nothing” 0 . x y x y g \ h / \ x y Diagrams adapted from Dictionary Section II F. Trains > On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 2:29 PM, Tracy Harms<kalei...@gmail.com> wrote: ... >> Also, I do see ways in which trains are more simple than modifier phrases. >> I think this simplicity is significantly *reduced* by the incorporation of >> Cap, whereas @ can be fruitfully associated with function composition as >> documented in uncounted texts. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm