Being able to step through a tacit definition as Henry's work shows sure would be great. But as a start it would be nice if the explicit debugger like the one in J6 did not get confused if a definition included some tacit expression like "0 in the definition line.
test=:(3 : 0)"0 (rank 0 processing) ) On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 9:00 AM, Raul Miller <rauldmil...@gmail.com> wrote: > That sounds great! > > What does it mean? > > (Note that Henry's recent efforts might be relevant, here.) > > Thanks, > > -- > Raul > > On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 9:54 AM, Don Guinn <dongu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > How about the debugger handle tacit definitions as well as explicit ones? > > > > On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 6:24 AM, Raul Miller <rauldmil...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > >> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:58 AM, Linda Alvord <lindaalv...@verizon.net> > >> wrote: > >> > However, I do not understand how ic and ic2 agree when they don't! > >> > >> . . . > >> > >> Personally, I sometimes wish that a rank decoration or other modifier > >> on an explicit definition would not interfere with debugging. I think > >> that this issue introduces two different phrasing styles, and there's > >> a tension between them that I am not totally sure is good for us. > >> . . . > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
