There are a lot of disclaimers here: this code, without context, is quite useless, and typically there are easier ways to do things in J than using objects. But here's the way I would probably do this, if I decided that the best way to store data was to make use of values in a locale. The key is nl, which lists all the names in the current locale.
If there's only going to be one instance of a: b_a_ =. 'bee' c_a_ =. 'see' do_something&.> ".@:(,&'_a_')&.> nl_a_ '' And if you really want a to be a new object and avoid name conflicts (this is the more literal translation): a =. cocreate '' b__a =. 'bee' c__a =. 'see' s =. '_',(>a),'_' do_something&.> ".@:(,&s)&.> nl__a '' I have used something like this before. The main benefit is that a locale, as opposed to a noun storing data, can be easily modified from anywhere, so it allows for more extensible code. Marshall On Mon, Dec 03, 2012 at 06:09:56PM +0000, Alex Giannakopoulos wrote: > On 3 December 2012 15:59, Raul Miller <rauldmil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > That said, when I want to translate J into a language other people > > understand, Javascript is usually my first choice. > > > > Why does that not surprise me? :-) > > > Incidentally, and if you have nothing better to do, how would you code this > Javascript into J? > a = new Object(); > a.b = "bee"; > a.c = "see"; > for (var prop in a) > do_something(a[prop]) ; > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
