> Behalf Of Roger Hui
>
> > By the way, a particular application failed to
> > run because a J6 empty vector turned out not to
> > be 'identical' to the corresponding J5 empty
> > vector and it was difficult to see, via their
> > linear representation, that they were actually
> > different in some sense.
>
> There had been no changes in 5!:5 on empty vectors
> or boxed empty vectors between J6 and J5.
>
I guess I was not sufficiently clear. The linear representation did not
introduce the difference; it just failed to exhibit it.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jose Mario Quintana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > > Behalf Of Roger Hui
> > > It comes down to whether there is one empty vector
> > > or more than one empty vector. (*)
> > [...]
> > >
> > > I will probably change 5!:5 to preserve the
> >
> > That seems to make more sense than the alternative of clarifying
> > that "when
> > interpreted, produces the named object" but it might not always be
> > 'identically' the same object.
> >
> > By the way, a particular application failed to run because a J6
> > empty vector
> > turned out not to be 'identical' to the corresponding J5 empty
> > vector and it
> > was difficult to see, via their linear representation, that they were
> > actually different in some sense.
Besides, even if the answer were that there is only one empty vector, {:@>
would exhibit a difference (for the case discussed) unless its behavior were
also modified.
> >
> > > distinction between <i.0 and <'' without answering
> > > (*) one way or the other.
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
