Raul wrote:
> Anyways, the definition which is relevant when cap is the left tine of
> a fork is a passive definition, and not an imperative definition. And
> making this distinction -- that it's being used passively -- seems
> worthwhile.
I responded:
> There are several issues with this interpretation. The foremost
> is that [: is _not being used at all_ . Not imperatively,
> not passively, not as quoted code, just - not. [1]
Let me try to capture in brief what I have just said at length:
[: conveys as much information in a
capped fork as & does in &.:
To wit: none at all. It's just part of the spelling. Characters that let
the interpreter recognize a pattern, and assign a meaning to the whole.
It is the whole that carries meaning, not the symbolic fragments.
-Dan
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
