In this case, it's doing this: ^ t. %@!
the dictionary definition suggests that we should instead be getting something like this: %@! :(^ * %@!@])"0 I'm not sure, though, what good that extra complexity would achieve. It's possible, for example, that that text for the dyadic case of a taylor verb was a half formed thought and what would be useful is something related-but-different. -- Raul On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 9:35 PM, Richard Vaughan <rlvaug...@comcast.net> wrote: > Not missing any important concept! Clearly the valuation at x can easily be > done as you suggest. I was just looking through some J primitives that I > had not used much and came upon this discrepancy between the vocabulary page > and the behavior of the verb in question. Probably the vocabulary was > wrong, and the verb itself does something not so easily replaceable with a > short definition. But I can't figure out exactly what it is doing. > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
