This is very reassuring; thanks a lot!
> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of R&S HUI > Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 7:52 PM > To: Beta forum > Subject: Re: [Jbeta] Dictionary's definition of f. > > 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
