On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 9:15 PM, km <[email protected]> wrote:
> I did keep }: because of puzzling things that happen if you use _1&{. instead
> (giving you a vector instead of a scalar). And I took out GCD .
}: is _1&{
Using { instead of {. gets you the desired "one rank lower than the
original argument" behavior.
But, of course, this vocabulary is useless unless we have associated
documentation.
Perhaps instead of defining a vocabulary, we should build vocabulary
accompaniment for existing documentation? For example, perhaps a
"just enough reference" for Roger Stokes' book and/or the primer.
One problem people face, learning J, is the layered character of the
language. The underlying concepts are simple when taken individually,
but they represent centuries of mathematical thought, capable of
representing a deep variety of topics. But you don't need to learn all
of that to start learning it. Anyways, if we had a "just enough
vocabulary and definition for this chapter" reference, some people
might find that useful? (A problem here, though, is that we're just
not used to writing good definitions.)
Thanks,
--
Raul
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
