> But how is: > > "The sentence +/ 1 2 3 4 is equivalent to 1+2+3+4; " > > and > > "The right argument of a verb is the value of the entire phrase to > its right. " > > not relevant here?
First of all, I was discussing the definition of / (in the /'s own article). A definition should be conclusive by itself (possibly referring to other text to avoid repetition but, one way or another, sufficient). Then, I agree that the two sentences that you cite are informative if combined. But they are in different chapters, they follow each other in the wrong order, and they still leave room for doubt: what if it was -/ rather than +/ ? Would it be equivalent to 1-2-3-4? (Ammusingly, wherever I see examples of u/, u is always +, or *, or <., etc.; it is never -, or %, or ^. I.e. (commutative and) associative verbs are used, from which one cannot deduce whether the computation is R-L or L-R.) Most importantly, as I said, the definition of / should be in one place, not scattered around. And then again, there remains the problem of precisely specifying u/y for 1=#y (which, too, should be done in the article defining /). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
