Jose Mario Quintana wrote: > > X=. 5 [ Y=. 0 1$' ' > > plus=. + > > plus1=. plus"1 > > X (plus1 f. -: plus1) Y > > 0 > > Until recently I naively assumed that the above should not happen. > It seems to me that the DoJ text for the 'f.' entry, > > "If x is a proverb, then y=: x f. is equivalent to it, except that > any names that occur in the definition of x are (recursively) replaced > by their referents" > > should be amended.
Why? You have a case here where the semantics of named code is different from the semantics of unnamed code. Changing that dictionary entry doesn't seem like it would add anything useful for this case. -- Raul ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
