Raul, I like your idea, but I think I would reverse the definitions of monadic and dyadic. What do you think about that?
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 3:41 PM, Raul Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > > You might want to do something like: > monadic=: [: : > dyadic=: : [: NB. for consistency > > length=: +/&.:*: dyadic > to=: -~ monadic > > ('monad' and 'dyad' would be slightly less verbose but they > are already defined.) > > FYI, > > -- -- (B=) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
