Thanks. Cap is sort of what I was looking for. A bit ugly though, but I suppose it is the price to pay for not having some sort of operator to deliberately invoke a hook or a fork.
On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 7:57 PM, alexgian <[email protected]> wrote: > I asked this question almost three years ago, when I was first starting. > Almost the same people answered it, and quite at length, too! > > If you want some explanations on the options of composing using the 'cap' > ([:) or the compose (@) you can look here: > http://jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2010-February/< > http://jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2010-February/018214.html> > search using "composing without forking (% +/ %)" > Unfortunately it is not too easy to search old mails. > > It is probably also worth understanding the "under" verb, and why > resistances in parallel are the same concept as "sumation *under* > inversion" , given by (+/ &.: %) > > The differences between @ and @:, and also between &. and &.: have to do > with rank, I leave their explanation, should you need it, to those more > elegant than I > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
