I agree. Stability is an asset. However, I can't see an issue with changes that simply correct errors.
If the Voc. were corrected in this case, I think it'd more accurately reflect, rather than change the meaning of the language. On 3 Jan 2016 2:19 pm, "Raul Miller" <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 10:01 PM, Matthew Baulch <[email protected]> > wrote: > > (4) I particularly enjoy the terseness of the original Voc., and its > > availability offline. Perhaps a static copy of NuVoc could be distributed > > with J, and the original Voc. could include a warning about its > > obsolescence? > > The original Voc is not obsolete - it's a crucial part of J's definition. > > Which is why it's not being changed. A language which changes out from > underneath you isn't very useful. > > -- > Raul > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
