> Rather than introduce such an anomaly, I favor Raul's earlier suggestion > that f :: n (n is a noun) be defined as f :: (n"_)
If you define something like that, I'd prefer (f :: n) to be defined as (f :: (n"f)) so that if f is an arithmetic operation you can replace nan errors this way, etc. Ambrus ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
