On 1/2/08, Jose Mario Quintana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I should have emphasized by writing '…does not seem to be a good > idea anymore to me.' My reason is that I had not realized that I use > long variations of the following pattern, > > (f v g vv h)Y > ((f Y) v ((g Y) vv (h Y)))
Do you mean that Y is a verb, and you have so many instances of (f v g w h) Y that you would not want to replace (f v g w h) Y with (f v g w h) H: Y (where H: represents a hypothetical hook conjunction).? If so, remember that pretty much everyone in this discussion agrees that backwards compatability issues mean that J will not ever change its current handling of bidents. However, if that is not what you meant, I do not understand your point. Thanks, -- Raul ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
