I concur with Dan based only on his first point: Consistency between u^:m and u ^:<m is worth having a slightly longer definition.
----- Original Message ---- From: Roger Hui <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: General forum <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, April 9, 2007 4:04:38 PM Subject: Re: [Jgeneral] Decision in definition of ^:(<m) a. Under the current definition, m = # u^:(<m) y, and the current definition is shorter than u^:(i.m+1) y . __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
