The cases where u f. is not equivalent to u, of practical interest or otherwise, are rare and are bugs. These have been fixed for the next J6.01 beta.
Thank you for finding and reporting this error. ----- Original Message ----- From: Jose Mario Quintana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Monday, July 10, 2006 7:36 am Subject: [Jbeta] Dictionary's definition of f. > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] On > > Behalf Of Jose Mario Quintana > > Sent: Saturday, July 08, 2006 3:18 PM > > To: 'Beta forum' > > Subject: RE: [Jbeta] Incorrect result shape from 5 +"1 (0 1 $' ') > > X=. 5 [ Y=. 0 1$' ' > > 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. Perhaps it should be clarified that the > equivalence only > holds for cases of "practical interest" although, to be > meaningful, the > concept of "practical interest" should be clarified as well. > > I am interested in this issue because I typically use proverbs to > defineother proverbs in the developing and testing phase and tacit > (function-level) production code is ultimately generated by a fixing > process. At this point I am not longer sure what the domain of the > equivalence is supposed to be; any clarifications (from anyone, of > course)would be much appreciated. > > Going forward I could fix code as soon as possible for testing > purposes but > this would complicate a lot the debugging phase as well. Either > way, I am > becoming very concerned about what I might have missed in the > past. Should > I be worried? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
