My thought was that this would take on special meaning when used in an adverb or conjunction argument, taking effect in the context of the either the smallest or largest such anonymous derived verb (slightly analogous to how $: takes arguments, but in either case ignoring containing hooks and/or forks unless they were inside some outer u or v argument).
Here, X:, Y: would tacitly refer to arguments of the resulting derived verb. But, it sounds like you had something different in mind... -- Raul On Sun, Aug 13, 2023 at 6:55 PM Elijah Stone <[email protected]> wrote: > > The 'n' is for 'now', but it was a placeholder name anyway. Why 'Y:'? > > On Sun, 13 Aug 2023, Raul Miller wrote: > > > On Sun, Aug 13, 2023 at 1:55 AM Elijah Stone <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I will note that, with my proposed n:, this would be trivial: (0&, + > >> ,&0)^:(2&^ n:)@1 > > > > I'm not sure I remember your proposal, but I imagine that Y: would be > > a better name (for what I think this would be doing) than n: > > > > (If x: was not already in use, then I imagine y: would have been a > > better choice than Y: but that would be getting into hypothetical > > changes in a hypothetical universe...) > > > > -- > > 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
