We used to have 11 : for that. Personally, I'd like to see 13 : moved into user space (JAL) and decommitted in the language proper. I think its presence in the Dictionary encourages more-than-transistory usage (i.e. people persisting it in scripts rather than using it to explore concepts in the REPL), which I think is deleterious - actively harmful.
Plus, it's much easier to extend and enhance tools like this in user space than in the core language, so we could incorporate ideas like yours, here, more quickly. -Dan Please excuse typos; sent from a phone. > On Apr 14, 2015, at 9:15 AM, Raul Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > > (Inspired by a conversation...) > > Currently, 13 : tries to form a tacit verb. > > But that doesn't always work, and it falls back to composing a 3 : or > 4 : definition depending on the presence of x. > > Of course, sometimes the resulting verb has an empty domain: > > 13 : '(x' > > But there's another option, in some cases, which is that it could be > forming an adverb. > > In other words, > > 13 : 'x&+ y' > > could return > > 1 : 'm&+ y' > > Something for the todo list... > > Thanks, > > -- > Raul > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
