> Any arguments against this change? Yes, I would argue that while this change is possible, it is probably undesirable.
I find it hard to read the multiple line expression in your example even though the code is trivial, and it would be so much harder with a non-trivial example. So I'd like to discourage this style. Also, I don't think being able to put single-line comments after the ) on the last line of an explicit definition very compelling, since multi-line comments can be put anywhere within the definition. On 4 June 2015 at 10:41, 'Pascal Jasmin' via Programming < [email protected]> wrote: > its possible to define nested multiple line expressions such as: > > v =. (4 : 0) (3 : 0) > +: y > ) > x+y > ) > 2 v 3 > 8 > > A problem is that you cannot place even a comment on the same line as a > closing ')' > > It would seem to be a simple modification to the parser to check for the > first character of a line to be ')' or ':', and the parser already takes > out any trailing blanks, so a simple useful change might be to strip out > trailing comments (first) and (then) blanks. > > This would have the added benefit of including documentation that is not > inserted into the function, which commenting what part of an expression ')' > is closing should not be anyway. > > Any arguments against this change? > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
