I wouldn't. d. and D. have many peculiarities, which you can see by
looking at the bug list.
Long ago Roger said IIRC that if he had it to do over he would not
implement d. and D. as primitives. His point was that the analysis
needed could be done just as well in a J script, and then it could be
expanded and maintained by ordinary mortals (my words, not his).
Since the analysis is done when the conjunction is executed, not when
the derived verb is executed, there's no need to avoid J for the analysis.
A J model of d. and D. would be a better use of time.
Henry Rich
On 4/25/2015 8:28 PM, Raul Miller wrote:
Oops, you are right.
Also, it seems that these work properly:
(^&_2.000000000001) d. _1
(^&_1)d._1
So it seems like a bug.
Does anyone feel like diagnosing why this happens? Or should I do that?
Thanks,
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
