For the current J implementation, it has to be, for that example. It looks like perhaps originally the meanings of @ and @: were reversed? Or maybe @: was an afterthought after @ was redefined?
Thanks, -- Raul On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 5:07 PM Vijay Lulla <[email protected]> wrote: > > Very nice! Minor nitpick: shouldn't the definition of pof use @: instead > of @? > > On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 2:44 PM Brian Schott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > That article really appeals to me. It made me wish KEI had made a video of > > it. > > > > On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 11:34 AM Raul Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > http://www.jsoftware.com/papers/camn.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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
