Sure, if you do not make use of d. is insignificant. However, difference in behavior because of context could cause a production system to crash and that would be very significant to me; being extra careful (trust but verify), in my experience, has prevented grim consequences in similar circumstances.
I am curious: What you do exactly mean by "Here's a definition for at which works exactly like @"? On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Raul Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
