Ambrus wrote: > If you define something like that, I'd prefer (f :: n) > to be defined as (f :: (n"f))
Oh yeah, very good point. Seconded.
-Dan
PS: In fact, I'd prefer the current definition of f :: g be
changed s.t. (f :: g b. 0) -: f b. 0 . See "Inverse with
rank of nominal":
http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/general/2003-December/013601.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
