Dan Bron wrote: > I don't know whether you're saying the Dictionary is incorrect with > respect to the implementation, or if you're requesting a change to the > definition of } . > > At the moment, the Dictionary and the interpreter agree on the behavior of > } : >
Comment withdrawn. I thought the behavior was as my "correction" stated, but I see that I am wrong. Is there a reason for only allowing the dyadic case? Best wishes, John ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
