I've done that, but then when errors occur the output gets really messy. And I get confused when using try. .
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 9:03 AM, Raul Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > Or, make debug be active? > > -- > Rau > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Don Guinn <[email protected]> wrote: > > Yes, I agree. not really pretty. Mostly I have wanted this when handling > > errors. Another way would be to have 13!:13'' work when debug is not > > active. All the information should be in the stack to produce the table. > Or > > does turning on debug cause additional information to be put in the > stack? > > > > And another thing that would be nice would be to have another 13!:? > signal > > showing the error on the caller's line, like 13!:8 but not show the line > in > > error of the current definition. Make the output look like an error > > encountered in a primitive. > > > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 8:24 AM, Raul Miller <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> While this (x__1_) could be done, it would also violate some current > >> locality guarantees -- code using it would become difficult to > >> understand. > >> > >> A more robust approach would be to define a nested block mechanism for > >> J, but even that needs a clear definition of why it's useful (but it's > >> most useful where clarity is remote). > >> > >> -- > >> 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 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
