There are several ways of translating that javascript code into J, I would have to know something about the larger context to know which of them I would pick.
That said, one of the simplest would be: do_something 'bee' do_something 'see' Another variation would be: b_a_=: 'bee' s_a_=: 'see' do_something@do_a_&> nl_a_ 0 But obviously one of my questions would be: why do we even have an object here, and does a different arrangement make sense? -- Raul On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 1:09 PM, Alex Giannakopoulos <aeg...@blueyonder.co.uk> 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
