> Behalf Of Henry Rich > Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2006 2:46 PM > To: 'Beta forum' > Subject: RE: [Jbeta] x and y variables > > But if you don't use global x y etc you have no problem, > right? So just do a Find in Files for x assigned globally, > and fix what comes up. Is that really going to cost anybody > more time than he has spent arguing about it on this list? > > Henry Rich > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jose Mario Quintana > > Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2006 2:41 PM > > To: 'Beta forum' > > Subject: RE: [Jbeta] x and y variables > > > > What if 1 : , 2 : , 3 : , 4 : and 13 : were left alone the > > way they are and > > the new way was implemented with 21 : , 22 : , 23 : , 24 : and 33 : ? > > > > The people that do not appreciate the change would be happy, > > libraries would > > not brake for that reason and the people that appreciate the > > change would be > > free to code the new way and recode their libraries if they so wish. > > > > Would that work? > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > For information about J forums see > > http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
The issue, as I understand it from reading the messages in this and related threads, is not only about old code malfunctioning or using x y etc. globally but also about assigning special local meaning to x y etc. going forward. In any case, my suggestion is about what could have been; as I said previously, it is all academic now. At least that was and still is my conclusion after reading the message below. > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of Roger Hui > Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2006 1:56 PM > To: General forum > Subject: Re: [Jgeneral] explicit arguments > > a. If you are using x and y as global names you have more > serious problems to deal with than arguing on the J forum. > > b. The reasons for the change were presented in my original > message for this thread, 2004-01-24 14:25 UTC-8. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
