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