Or -...@_:
I suspect Raul is just commenting that given that _: exists it seems that __:
should exist too for consistency.
I imagine the reasoning behind this is similar to why {: doesn't have a dyadic
form analogous to {. .
> From: Kip Murray
> Sent: Friday, 17 September 2010 15:12
>
> Can't you use __"_ ? Kip Murray
>
>
> On 9/16/2010 4:50 PM, Raul Miller wrote:
> > When working on a maximization problem, if you encounter a
> > domain error, it would seem natural to modify the function you
> > are trying to maximize
> > f :: __:
> >
> > Except, __: is a spelling error, instead of a constant
> > function which returns the minimum possible value.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
