"Henry Rich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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
J's handling of _. was never really very consistent, even with itself. For example (from J 6.01): _. <: _ 1 _ >: _. 0 _ <:~ _. 1 <:/~ _ __ _. 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 >:/~ _ __ _. 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 (Even though one would expect >: to be the same as <:~) So, as such, I would consider slavish compatibility with results that are poorly-defined to actually be a BAD thing. -- Mark D. Niemiec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
