On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 10:39 AM, Roger Hui <[email protected]> wrote: > The first suggestion, linking an error back to the > primitive that signaled the error, is harder, > given the current structure of the implementation. > For example, suppose the code for the dyad i. > gets an error. However, that code can be invoked > not just by the user executing i., but by other > primitives such as e., f/., etc. >
In other words, the cost here would be that primitives would need two entry points? (One where they retain their identity as a primitive, for error reporting purposes and the other where they do not?) That does indeed sound significant -- we have a lot of primitives and we have monad and dyad cases for each, and adding new naming conventions and calling conventions all takes time to set up. But were there other issues, also? Thank you, -- Raul ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
