Dan Bron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I would also like to emphasize a distinction that no one has draw in recent > discussions: > > A scalar is a rank zero array. > An atom is an open scalar.
Where do you obtain this definition? Perhaps from APL, in which scalars are open, but arrays of larger dimension have a structure akin to implicit boxing (as opposed to J's explicit boxing). > That, is: an atom is fundamental. Indivisible. A building block. > It has no structure; hence, no structural changes can be made to it. > The monad < produces _scalars_, not atoms. To be precise: APL used the word 'scalar' to indicate rank-0 arrays. J uses the word 'atom' to indicate rank-0 arrays, although the word 'scalar' may be used interchangeably with it. a: is an atom (i.e. rank 0 array) of type 'box'. bill lam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > IMO a "non-atomic array" is just an array. There is no such thing as "atomic > array" because the words are self-contradictory. 'x' and 42 and a: are all atoms. They are also arrays of rank 0. The words 'atom' and 'array' both apply here, so they are not contradictory. -- Mark D. Niemiec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
