Perhaps Wm meant something that _looks_ like
an overstrike character without being physically
entered as such. Either way, kudos.
PMA wrote:
There we go! This sounds neat in just the way I'd hoped,
especially now with Wm's mention of _overstrikes_ for J.
Not so far, maybe, from the best of both worlds.
BTW, I'd suspected that some of J's command groupings
make less sense than others. That's why I said "change,
perhaps...".
Skip Cave wrote:
...
Also, to Peter, Yes. A one glyph-per-primitive notation will require many
more symbols to implement than using ASCII character pairs as a single
symbol. However, with well-designed glyphs, the "relatedness" between
symbols will be as good or better than the two-character ASCII symbols in
J. The APL character set is a testament to that. Look at the
equals/not-equals glyphs in APL, and then compare that to the same two
functions in J. APL wins out handily.
...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
