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. Thanks, -- Raul On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 9:56 PM, PackRat <pack...@anet.com> wrote: > I'm creating a script that will execute several explicit verbs within > the same script. I currently have the main explicit verb (with twp > lines that retrieve the L/R args and a smoutput command to test that > the L/R args are retrieved correctly) and one other explicit verb where > every line is remarked out (via NB. commands). Just in case it makes a > difference (which I don't think it does or should), some of the lines > in the second verb have additional internal NB. commands at the end of > the lines. (In other words, some lines look like this: NB. code NB. > comment) > > The problem that I can't understand and which acts like a bug is that, > when I load the script and execute it (something like "3 4 eph09 > 1980"), the interpreter gives an index error relating to one of the > lines in the REMARKED-OUT verb within the script, which line contains > an amend command. Isn't the interpreter supposed to ignore remarked- > out lines? Thanks in advance for any insights (or corrections or > workarounds) so that I can continue programming! > > > Harvey > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
