> I feel that it's very hard to win (hard to be clearer) if you replace a primitive conjunction by something else.
I can use this to illustrate why it's difficult to have an absolute rule of style. If I am composing functions f0, f1, f2, f3, f4, etc., and assuming rank is not a problem, I'd write f0@f1@f2@f3@f4. But suppose I have a bunch of forks and then the last (leftmost) thing is a f0@ ? In that case I may write [: f0 f1 f2 f3 f4 f5 instead of f0@(f1 f2 f3 f4 f5). Or, even more confounding, if the last two things are atops? Then do I write f0@f1@(f2 f3 f4 f5 f6) or [: f0 [: f1 f2 f3 f4 f5 f6 ? In such cases it is arguable that replacing a primitive conjunction made the expression clearer. On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 11:31 AM, Roger Hui <[email protected]>wrote: > I would write it: > > ic1=: , @ (j./&i:/) @ +. > > I feel that it's very hard to win (hard to be clearer) if you replace a > primitive conjunction by something else. In this case & . > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
