Not bad. The remaining thing to do about this, is to think about other extensions which may be possible to do with f :: n, which would be pre-empted with the proposed change.
Regarding __: as a constant function: I think if 0: 1: etc. were not defined and implemented before we thought of the n v v extension to the fork, they would not be defined and implemented as such today. p.s. Why is this in "Chat"? If substantial J-relevant material keeps being posted to chat pretty soon there'll be pressure to create a new Form, "Idle Chit Chat" or something. ----- Original Message ----- From: Dan Bron <[email protected]> Date: Friday, September 17, 2010 6:59 Subject: Re: [Jchat] __: To: 'Chat forum' <[email protected]> > 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
