I think the issue is regarding the implicit rank inhereted by @; for example, using @: is allowed under "the simple rules." See http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2011-December/025823.html
________________________________________ From: programming-boun...@jsoftware.com [programming-boun...@jsoftware.com] on behalf of Dan Bron [j...@bron.us] Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 9:13 AM To: 'Programming forum' Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] Challenge 5 Super Bowl Supposition I asked: > Why should we avoid @ ? Linda responded: > It encourages and fosters thinking > from applying functions from left to > right. Raul followed-up: > *: -: 8 > *:@-: 8 > I am not seeing a big left-to-right vs. right-to-left difference, here. I'm with Raul. My sense is the aversion to @ is a holdover from APL; surely reading left-to-right and hitting a [: is no less disruptive than a @ . In fact, given that [: is meaningless by design, and it also requires you understand verb train rules, which are not left-to-right, it is likely more disruptive to the experience. I think I'll hang on to @ . Raul wrote: > have to understand rank before you can > fully understand how @ works. Yes, but you could always use @: to avoid the question. In my view, a larger obstacle someone transitioning to @ from [: is the difference between e.g. [: *: +/ and *:@:+/ (which isn't a question of rank, but of precedence and associativity, which is related to Linda's concern). -Dan ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
