The error is not in _. <: _. but with
_. <: _
I am running hbeta and that still shows
_. <: _
0
9!:14''
j602/beta/2008-02-01/14:27
I don't know if this is what Roger was expecting.
The old behavior was
_. <: _
1
9!:14''
j601/beta/2006-08-23/07:45
Henry Rich
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eric Iverson
> Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 2:58 PM
> To: Beta forum
> Subject: Re: [Jbeta] J602 incompatibility: _. <: _
>
> Roger has pointed out the source of the problem. The
> intention is that J602
> (with the new compiler) behave the same as J601 as we were
> happy with that
> behavious (as happy as one can be with _.).
>
> J602 gbeta gives the answer you want. That is:
>
> _. <: _.
> 1
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Henry Rich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "'Beta forum'" <[email protected]>
> Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 8:27 AM
> Subject: [Jbeta] J602 incompatibility: _. <: _
>
>
> > On J602,
> > _. <: _
> > gives 0. On 601 it gave 1.
> >
> > This is not a bug but it caused me a few minutes' debugging &
> > might be mentioned for others.
> >
> > It's not a bug because the behavior of _. is undefined. But in
> > a way, it is a J problem because working old code breaks in the
> > new release.
> >
> > Just thinking... I try never to have _. in my data, but it's hard
> > to be sure. How hard would it be to have a debug setting that
> > gives a domain error if _. is ever produced? Then I would
> > know that I would be immune from a problem like this.
> >
> > Henry Rich
> >
> >
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > For information about J forums see
> http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For information about J forums see
> http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
