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

Reply via email to