On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Jose Mario Quintana <[email protected]> wrote: >> Here's a definition for at which works exactly like @ >> >> at=: 2 :'([: u v)"v > > > Rather works almost exactly? > > ('*'"_) @ ((+: @ *:) (d.1)) (0 1 2) > * > ('*'"_) @ ((+: at *:) (d.1)) (0 1 2) > *** > > ((+: @ *:) (d.1)) b.0 > _ _ _ > ((+: at *:) (d.1)) b.0 > 0 0 0
Here, we are no longer comparing the definitions of @ and at ((+: @ *:) (d.1)) 0 4x&p. ((+: at *:) (d.1)) 0 4x&p."0 0 0 Instead, it's the working of d. that is significant here. Here's another case where @ and at are different, and I feel that the significance of this case is similar to the significance of the d. case (though obviously they are not identical cases): '@' -: 'at' 0 -- Raul ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
