Raul Miller wrote: > It's hard to visualize what is happening here. It's possible, for > example, that you have shadow definitions (this can happen if you > are using =. in the definition -- then the script will not overwrite > any existing definition). > There could be other issues also. It's really hard to isolate a > problem when we cannot inspect it for ourselves.
and Devon McCormick wrote: > It's extremely hard to figure out what's going on with only vague > descriptions and guesses at what might be the problem. People are > eager to help if you can provide enough code for them to reproduce > the error. You'll often find the error yourself in the process of > reducing the code to the minimum required to show others how to get > it. I know this is the advice usually given in instances like this. That's why I delayed writing until I was frustrated beyond my limit. The explicit verb definition had only 5 lines, like this: verbname=. 4 : 0 line to retrieve arg x line to retrieve arg y smoutput results ) That's what frustrated me so much: the verb was doing absolutely minimal stuff. In preparation for sending the full script, I loaded a new instance of J, and this time it consistently gave a "value error" (different from what I had reported), which didn't make sense either. So I looked over and looked over the code again. And then I saw it, the simplest of typos: I had written =. instead of =: ! When I corrected it, things ran fine. Thanks for the help in seeing this! Harvey ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
