Hi Skip, After some very helpful comments you wrote
> > Should tacit syntax be optimized for brevity, or optimized for ease of > conversion to an explicit form? Which of these is a more important > design goal, and what advantages each brings, is the core of the issue. There has been a long tradition of 'APL as a Tool of Thought'. In that tradition I do not think either brevity or ease of conversion have been central. What has mattered has been the power of the functions and the syntax to facilitate expressing both old and new algorithms and ideas. The piece by Donald McIntyre which I referenced earlier in this debate is a model of the sort of thing which would prove very influential in the J community. It showed clearly the value of the new structure in adding to the ways we think about things. If Don W can show us how his proposal extends and enriches our tools of thought rather than just a manner of expressing them, it would be much more compelling. That is not to derogate excellent tools of expression. But as Raul and others have shown, it is a non trivial task to improve on the years of work which Ken, Roger and others including current users have put into getting so far. I think therefore another set of questions addresses the heart of his concerns. Has the wider growth of J been inhibited by the difficulties with explicit and tacit conversion, other features of the language, the manner in which it has been presented, or some other factors altogether? Those issues have perhaps morphed to another thread. Fraser ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
