I don't think that that definition of round can be tacit and use under. A tacit implementation might be: 1&$: : ([ * <.@+~&1r2@%~)
Note also: this is a verb, not an adverb. In this definition, 1 is the default value for x, not a control argument for : FYI, -- Raul On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 11:55 AM, David Ward Lambert <[email protected]> wrote: > round =: 1&$: : (dyad def '<.@:(1r2+])&.:(%&x) y') > assert 1 -: round 1.2 > assert 1.25 -: 0.25 round 1.2 > > Round =: adverb def '<.@:(1r2+])&.:(%&m) y' > > Is there a tacit definition of round using under? > What is the tacit definition of adverb Round? > Thanks, Dave. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
