Paul(?); IIRC, 42 is the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe and everything, which may or may not be the meaning of liff.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Answer_to_Life,_the_Universe,_and_Everything (I'm _amazed_ this is what I got when I googled "42".) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\/| Randy A MacDonald | APL: If you can say it, it's done.. (ram) |/\| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | |\ | | The only real problem with APL is that BSc(Math) UNBF'83 | it is "still ahead of its time." Sapere Aude | - Morten Kromberg Natural Born APL'er | Demo website: http://156.34.84.29/ -----------------------------------------------------(INTP)----{ gnat }- ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "General forum" <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 5:23 PM Subject: Re: [Jgeneral] definition of a: > the reason I used 42=$0 is twofold: > 1) It highlights that the argument of weather to use $0 or 0$0 was a no > man's land debate. > 2) It refers to the movie "hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy" where as > everyone knows, the meaning of life is 42. > > As a footnote, I remember early discussions of "jot" being the enclose of > the empty vector as in: <i.0 > As I see now, the only difference is that a: is actually Boolean and a > scalar. > > I was thinking that Roger could explain the evolution from "jot" to the > actual a: and make comments if required. > But I suppose I was ignored and misinterpreted (as is usually the case). > My only excuse is to be from a different cultural background... > > > Paul Gauthier > APL Software Developer - Senior > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Phone: 312-739-3467 > Fax: 312-739-3496 > > CheckFree. The Company that Powers Payment on the WebSM. > http://www.checkfree.com/paybillsonline > > > > > Dan Bron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 03/14/2007 03:01 PM > Please respond to > General forum <[email protected]> > > > To > General forum <[email protected]> > cc > > Subject > Re: [Jgeneral] definition of a: > > > > > > > Why is everyone quoting 3!:3 all of a sudden? > > What is 3!:3]42=$0 supposed to demonstrate? What about 3!:3]'Q'=$0 ? > The only interesting byte I see in either result is 2nd row, 2nd column, > which indicates the result type is boolean, which is what you would expect > from a logical comparison like = . > > By the way, in the context of the current discussion, it would be more > useful to quote 3!:0 which gives the datatype of the argument. All the > rest of the output of 3!:3 is just noise to that signal. > > >The result's domain as a side effect of a loose type language seems to be > > >at the center of the argument... > > What is the argument? That empty arrays of type A should not match empty > arrays of type B when A isn't B? > > To me, the crux of THAT argument lies in 1 = *./'' . For the details of > my thoughts on this, see: > http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/general/2005-November/025629.html > > If the argument is whether a: should be documented as <$0 or <0$0 , > then: > > datatype $0 > integer > > datatype 0$0 > boolean > > datatype >a: > boolean > > > But, since ($0)-:0$0 (and even ($0) -:&{. 0$0), REGARDLESS of the > reasons, then <$0 is not wrong; so what matters it? > > -Dan > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
